Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 41:
Line 41: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 66:
Line 91: − − == Criticism == − − ===Evidence 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> − 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 also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<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. − 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=== − 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. − − == Evidence for evolution? == − In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>Feduccia, 1993</ref> − − While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have argued against Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>Wyoming Dinosaur Center.</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds. − − The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.<ref name="cw94">Wieland, 1994</ref> − Critics point out that its teeth are irrelevant to its alleged transitional status, as a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.<ref name="cw94" /> − Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. − In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />
moved specimen table down prior to adding in additional detail
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.
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.
== Criticism ==
===Evidence 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>
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 also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<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.
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===
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.
== Evidence for evolution? ==
In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>Feduccia, 1993</ref>
While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have argued against Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>Wyoming Dinosaur Center.</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.
The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.<ref name="cw94">Wieland, 1994</ref>
Critics point out that its teeth are irrelevant to its alleged transitional status, as a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.<ref name="cw94" />
Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved.
In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />
== Specimens ==
== Specimens ==
| Thermopolis specimen<ref>The Wyoming Dinosaur Center]</ref><ref>Hartman, 2005</ref> || || || || Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, [[Wyoming]] || Had been privately owned in Switzerland
| Thermopolis specimen<ref>The Wyoming Dinosaur Center]</ref><ref>Hartman, 2005</ref> || || || || Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, [[Wyoming]] || Had been privately owned in Switzerland
|}
|}
== Bibliography ==
== Bibliography ==