Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Junior
Better find a better resource than your public school science text. Archaeopteryx is considered by many sources as a sophiticated fraud. X-ray resonance spectrograph tests performed on the British Museum specimen in 1986 showed the material containing the feathers was different from that containing the rest of the fossil. Add to this that fossils of real birds have been found that are much older than this hoax and it is obvious it is not a link.
13 posted on 01/14/2002 12:32:29 PM PST by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Blessed
Better find a better resource than your public school science text.

Maybe you need some better sources.

X-ray resonance spectrograph tests performed on the British Museum specimen in 1986 showed the material containing the feathers was different from that containing the rest of the fossil.

Completely false. Somehow, the result of the investigation into Hoyle's bogus charge is changed in your report. Your work, or your sources?

Add to this that fossils of real birds have been found that are much older than this hoax and it is obvious it is not a link.

The logic would be silly here even if true. That Archae is probably somewhat off the main line leading to modern birds isn't a huge deal. It's still evidence of where birds came from. Here's a thread I did on the dino-bird sequence, the point of which is that some dinosaurs were rather birdlike to begin with and can be seen virtually morphing into birds in the fossil record.

14 posted on 01/14/2002 12:47:03 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Blessed
Better find a better resource than your public school science text. Archaeopteryx is considered by many sources as a sophiticated [sic] fraud. X-ray resonance spectrograph tests performed on the British Museum specimen in 1986 showed the material containing the feathers was different from that containing the rest of the fossil. Add to this that fossils of real birds have been found that are much older than this hoax and it is obvious it is not a link.

This is an old, discredited, canard.  From On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery:

If a layer of cement is present, then some sort of discontinuity should be visible between the true limestone and the cement, on the surface and/or in vertical section (a vertical section is a section cut through the slab, at 90 degrees to the fossil). No such discontinuity has been found, even in vertical section. There does appear to be a division in vertical section whereby an upper 500-850 micrometre (1 micrometre = 1/1000 millimetre) layer is separated from the lower layer by a dark band. However, the upper layer shows the same granular structure as the lower layer and the structure is continuous through gaps in the dark band (Charig et al.. 1986). Also the complete lack of air bubbles and the presence of calcite crystals indicate that the whole section is original. Besides, the upper layer is far too thin to receive any feather impressions (Charig et al.. 1986). A further point worth raising here is that any organic bonding material available to a forger in the 19th century for mixing cement would have shown some evidence of cracking or shrinking away. No such cracking or shrinkage has been observed.

And

The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.

This is one reason I created The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- so that these discussions could move beyond reinventing the wheel every time a new thread opens.

15 posted on 01/14/2002 12:48:32 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson