[metmom]

I thought Archaeopteryx was exposed as a fraud. I found this after a google search: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html


Don't you think this cuts into your credibilty a little bit?

[RogueIsland]

I thought Archaeopteryx was exposed as a fraud.

Did you read the article you linked? The article is about a fraud known as the Archeaoraptor, not Archaeopteryx. Two different things.

[Ichneumon]

I thought Archaeopteryx was exposed as a fraud.

You thought incorrectly.

I found this after a google search: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html Don't you think this cuts into your credibilty a little bit?

No, but it cuts into *yours*, since you're apparently unable to notice something as elementary as the fact that "Archaeoraptor" is not the same thing as "Archaeopteryx". Dyslexic much?

[jennyp]

Ironic thing about the archaeoraptor affair: The fossil turned out to be half of an early bird and half of an already known feathered dinosaur called microraptor. So even after allowing for the fraud by the Chinese farmer who pasted the thing together, we still have a feathered dinosaur!

[Junior]

Sweetie, that article is about archaeoraptor, not archaeopeteryx. Two different critters.