Changes

''Archaeopteryx'' is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile]]s, making it appear to be a so-called "[[transitional form]]" between reptiles and birds.  

''Archaeopteryx'' is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile]]s, making it appear to be a so-called "[[transitional form]]" between reptiles and birds.  

There are two criticisms of the ''Archaeopteryx''.  The preeminent British physicist, Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], determined it to be fraudulent. Another criticism is even if ''Archaeopteryx'' existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

There are two criticisms of the ''Archaeopteryx''.  The preeminent British physicist, Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], claimed it to be fraudulent. Another criticism is even if ''Archaeopteryx'' existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

== Specimens ==

== Specimens ==

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.

 

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>

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.

 

After Hoyle was punished, other scientists predictably claimed that the fossils were not forgeries<ref>Charig et al. 1986. Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science 232: 622-626</ref>. Answers in Genesis has found the ''Archaeopteryx'' to be so flawed with respect to the theory of evolution that it does not rely on the evidence that it is a fraud.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use</ref>

===Not a transitional===

===Not a transitional===