Changes

== Criticism ==  

== Criticism ==  

===Fraud dispute===

===Fraud dispute===

===Charges of fraud===

====Charges of fraud====

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists led by noted British [[Fred Hoyle|Radio-astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the plates and counter-plates from the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, and found evidence of forgery.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref>  They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.<ref name="four">British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985).<br />W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985).<br />T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50.<br />G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1447:3.</ref>

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists led by noted British [[Fred Hoyle|Radio-astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the plates and counter-plates from the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, and found evidence of forgery.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref>  They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.<ref name="four">British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985).<br />W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985).<br />T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50.<br />G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1447:3.</ref>

They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.<ref name="four" />

They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.<ref name="four" />

When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />

When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />

The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

===Assertions of authenticity===

====Assertions of authenticity====

Scientists who have since inspected the London ''Archaeopteryx'' and other specimens have conlcuded these fossils are not forgeries<ref>Charig et al. 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626</ref>. In particular, the found the feathers on the Maxburg fossil continue underneath the bones - precluding the possibility of them being added to a reptile fossil, tiny fractures that could not have been seen at the time of Archaeopteryx's discovery matched in the plate and counter-plate and the 'blobs' cited by Hoyle are also have matching impressions on the counter plate (suggesting they weren't added). The evidence that ''Archaeopteryx'' is not a fraud is so strong that creationist site Answers in Genesis suggests creationists don't use this argument <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use</ref>

Scientists who have since inspected the London ''Archaeopteryx'' and other specimens have conlcuded these fossils are not forgeries<ref>Charig et al. 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626</ref>. In particular, the found the feathers on the Maxburg fossil continue underneath the bones - precluding the possibility of them being added to a reptile fossil, tiny fractures that could not have been seen at the time of Archaeopteryx's discovery matched in the plate and counter-plate and the 'blobs' cited by Hoyle are also have matching impressions on the counter plate (suggesting they weren't added). The evidence that ''Archaeopteryx'' is not a fraud is so strong that creationist site Answers in Genesis suggests creationists don't use this argument <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use</ref>

===Not a transitional===

===Not a transitional===

The second criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'', that it is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp</ref> suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.  In 1994, an article explained that the ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially a flying bird, with a large [[cerebellum]] and [[visual cortex]]. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not (the South American [[hoatzin]], ''Opisthocomus hoazin'', also shares with ''Archaeopteryx'' clawed digits in its wings, albeit as juveniles).

The second criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'', that it is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp</ref> suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.  In 1994, an article explained that the ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially a flying bird, with a large [[cerebellum]] and [[visual cortex]]. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not (the South American [[hoatzin]], ''Opisthocomus hoazin'', also shares with ''Archaeopteryx'' clawed digits in its wings, albeit as juveniles).

== Evidence for evolution? ==

== Evidence for evolution? ==