Changes

|}

|}

==First criticism: fraud==

== Criticism ==  

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists including [[Fred Hoyle|Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, front and back, and declared them to be fakes.<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" />

They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref name="four" />

They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref name="four" />

The [[Nobel Prize]] committee punished Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.

The [[Nobel Prize]] committee punished Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.

==Second criticism: 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). Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

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). Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />