Changes

There are two criticisms of the Archaeopteryx.  One criticism is that the fossil fragments are fraudulent. Another criticism is that even if Archaeopteryx existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

There are two criticisms of the Archaeopteryx.  One criticism is that the fossil fragments are fraudulent. Another criticism is that even if Archaeopteryx existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

Only 7 specimens suggesting the existence of Archaeopteryx have been presented.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens</ref>  The source of specimens seems unlikely:  six came from Germany and one from England, where the highest prices could be obtained on auction from evolutionists, and none from anywhere else in the world. Two of those in Germany came from the same family, 16 years apart, who were amateur collectors. A third specimen is missing and has not been seen in years. Still more specimens lack much detail and were initially described as other species. Frauds in Germany and England in connection with evolution claims (e.g., [[Piltdown Man]]) were common.

Only 7 specimens suggesting the existence of Archaeopteryx have been presented.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens</ref>  The source of specimens seems unlikely:  six came from Germany and one from England, where the highest prices could be obtained on auction from evolutionists, and none from anywhere else in the world. Two of those in Germany came from the same family, 16 years apart, who were amateur collectors. A third specimen is missing and has not been seen in years. Still more specimens lack much detail and were initially described as other species. Frauds in Germany and England in connection with evolution claims (e.g., [[Piltdown Man]]) were common.

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>British Journal                                        of Photography (March-June 1985).</ref><ref>W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985).</ref><ref>T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50.</ref><ref>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>See references ''supra''.</ref>  They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref>See references ''supra''.</ref>  They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<ref>See references ''supra''.</ref>  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>See references ''supra''.</ref>  The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

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>British Journal                                        of Photography (March-June 1985).</ref><ref>W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985).</ref><ref>T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50.</ref><ref>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>See references ''supra''.</ref>  They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref>See references ''supra''.</ref>  They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<ref>See references ''supra''.</ref>  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>See references ''supra''.</ref>  The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

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.

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.

== Bibliography ==

== Bibliography ==