Changes
fixed plural form of specimen, deleted two redundant paragraphs
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 specimenspecimens, 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.
The second criticism of the Archaeopteryx, that it is not a transitional form even if it did exist, 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 that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact factss that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. 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" />
== 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>
