ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/09/85)
At least one writer on net.origins has asked about the state of the archeopteryx these days. An article by a Mr. Wm. Rusher appeared in the Washington (D.C.) Times last Friday, on this subject, which I feel readers on net.origins will get a kick out of. Without further ado, here it is: .......................................................................... The decision of the California Board of Education to reject all textbooks submitted for use in seventh and eighth grade science classes on the grounds that they water-down official guidelines mandating the teaching of evolution may concievably be justified on the narrow issue. But it is bound to reinforce the widespread impression that the advocates of evolutionary theory are less interested in reasonable discussion than in shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats. As anybody who presumes to write critically of a scientific dogma rapidly discovers, such lese majeste triggers a flurry of correspondence whose tone is anything but clinical. With an arrogance and certitude reminiscent of the Spanish inquisition, the miscreant is peremptorily ordered to abandon his ignorant doubts, and get back in line. The vigor and sheer nastiness of the assault gives rise to the suspicion that one is in the presence of a hidden agenda - most likely that of secular humanism (a polite term for atheism). But this is, as the saying goes, a free country, and evidence keeps popping up that the scientific know-it-alls don't, in fact, know it all. Take the recent quite serious doubts that have arisen concerning the celebrated archeopteryx. One of the persisting problems of evolutionary theory is the remarkable scarcity of "intermediate forms". It seems plausible that existing species developed from pre-existing forms of life, but if so, the fossil record ought to be rich in intermediate forms, demonstrating such evolutionary development. In fact, however, such forms are so rare, that certain innovative scientific thinkers have begun advocating a concept called "punctuated evolution" - the theory being that new species evolve in such rapid bursts that they elude recording in fossil strata. (Holden's note: for an idea of how rapid, see "Earth in Upheavel" by Immanuel Velikovsky, who invented punctuated evolution in 1950) However, there are a few intermediate forms on which paleontologists have been able to hang their hats. One of the best known of these is the archeopteryx. Scientists believe that birds evolved from reptiles during the mezozoic era. This was the geological age during which reptile life dominated the earth, and before it ended, there indisputably were true birds flying around. Also, there were a number of forms of flying reptiles, from the early pterodactly, which wasonly the size of a sparrow, to the great pteranodons near the era's close, which had a wingspread of 25 feet. But where were the intermediate forms between theflying reptiles and the birds? Happily, in the 1860s, a Bavarian doctor named Karl Haberlein found, in some limestone deposits dating from the middle of the mezazoic, two distinctly reptilian fossil skeletons about the size of a crow, each sporting clear imprints of what the Enclycopedia Brittanica calls "essentially modern feathers". Behold: the intermediate form! But now a group of modern investigators, including the very eminent cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, have denounced archeopteryx as a fraud, presumably committed by the late Dr. Haberlein. Studying the Haberlein specimen in the British Museum of Natural History, they claim to have discovered microscopic evidences of hanky-panky, and charge that the famous early bird is simply a reptilian fossil decorated with imprints of chicken feathers. Harking back to the famous Piltdown Man, which fascinated paleontologists for 40 years before it was shown in 1953 to be an artfully stained combination of a human cranium and an orangutan jaw, Mr. Hoyle teasingly describes archeopteryx as a "PILTDOWN CHICKEN". It is only fair to add that paleontologists seem to be sticking by archeopteryx,and are asking what a cosmologist is doing barging into their very different scientific specialty. But the point is not who is right or wrong in this controversy, but what it tells us about the state of evolutionary science. One wonders what the all-wise California Board of Education will order that young Californians must be taught about the archeopteryx. It must take a fast and flexible textbook publisher to sell his science textbooks in California these days.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/09/85)
In article <420@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > But now a group of modern investigators, including the very eminent > cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle, have denounced Archeopteryx as a fraud, > presumably committed by the late Dr. Haberlein. I'd like to see a published account by Hoyle and the others. And then the rebuttals. Anybody have any references? Archaeopteryx would be a strong contender for an intermediate on skeletal features alone, without the feathers. And there are several other families of fossil birds known with teeth and other ancestral characteristics. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (10/16/85)
In article <420@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >At least one writer on net.origins has asked about the state of the >archeopteryx these days. An article by a Mr. Wm. Rusher appeared in the ... >But now a group of modern investigators, including the very eminent cosmologist >Sir Fred Hoyle, have denounced archeopteryx as a fraud, presumably committed >by the late Dr. Haberlein. Studying the Haberlein specimen in the British >Museum of Natural History, they claim to have discovered microscopic evidences >of hanky-panky, and charge that the famous early bird is simply a reptilian fossil decorated with imprints of chicken feathers. Harking back to the famous As I remember, more than one archeopteryx specimen has been found. Can anyone confirm this? If true, any hanky-panky in the Haberlein specimen could be checked... (or would you claim that this too is a fake, as Duane Gish claims all fossil remains of early man are?) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Some things have to be believed to be believed. Steve Tynor Georgia Instutute of Technology ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (10/17/85)
In article <880@gitpyr.UUCP> tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) writes: >In article <420@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >>At least one writer on net.origins has asked about the state of the >>archeopteryx these days. An article by a Mr. Wm. Rusher appeared in the >... >>But now a group of modern investigators, including the very eminent cosmologist >>Sir Fred Hoyle, have denounced archeopteryx as a fraud, presumably committed >>by the late Dr. Haberlein. Studying the Haberlein specimen in the British >>Museum of Natural History, they claim to have discovered microscopic evidences >>of hanky-panky, and charge that the famous early bird is simply a reptilian fossil decorated with imprints of chicken feathers. Harking back to the famous > >As I remember, more than one archeopteryx specimen has been found. Can anyone >confirm this? If true, any hanky-panky in the Haberlein specimen could be >checked... (or would you claim that this too is a fake, as Duane Gish claims >all fossil remains of early man are?) > I know of at least 2 complete - maybe three specimens (that is full skeletons and feather impressions. I would also like to note that the claims have not been even slightly accepted. The comments made about the specimens would be highly unlikely given the unusual type of limestone they are found in. It is a very fine grained micritic limestone. It has such an even surface that it makes an excellant base for printing lithographic prints -- hence its common name of lithostone. To do what Sir Hoyle(who has little experience in micro-petrology) claims was done would be quite a feat indeed. Furthermore the claims he has are concerned with only the feathers -- yet there are several skeletal features that are transitionary that are not mentioned. Having looked at the casts of these specimens at the British museum, I find his claims still quite nebulous. I'd like to see some electron microscope work (AND some micro-petrographic studies done first) these would show up differences that would be much more difinitive. I'm not convinced that a cosmologist could tell the difference between different limestone types that occur naturally - let alone if cement had been used. P.M.Pincha-Wagener a feat
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/26/85)
In article <880@gitpyr.UUCP> tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) writes: > >As I remember, more than one archeopteryx specimen has been found. Can anyone >confirm this? If true, any hanky-panky in the Haberlein specimen could be >checked... (or would you claim that this too is a fake, as Duane Gish claims >all fossil remains of early man are?) > Yes indeed, in fact five or six have been found. Only *one* of which lacks feather impressions. Unless *all* of the remaining specimens were excavated by Haberlein this rather effectively vindicates Haberlein. In fact I pointed this out the last time this matter was brought up. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/26/85)
In article <336@bcsaic.UUCP> pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes: > >I would also like to note that the claims have not been even slightly >accepted. The comments made about the specimens would be highly unlikely >given the unusual type of limestone they are found in. It is a very fine >grained micritic limestone. It has such an even surface that it makes >an excellant base for printing lithographic prints -- hence its common >name of lithostone. To do what Sir Hoyle(who has little experience in >micro-petrology) claims was done would be quite a feat indeed. What exactly does Hoyle claim to have done? >I'd like to see some electron microscope work (AND some >micro-petrographic studies done first) these would show up differences >that would be much more difinitive. Ditto! > >I'm not convinced that a cosmologist could tell the difference >between different limestone types that occur naturally - let alone >if cement had been used. > Hold it! Isn't cment essentially just crushed limestone in water?!?! If he is trying to claim that part of the specimen is in artificial cement he is on shaky ground! I doubt *I* could tell the difference between fine grain cement and micritic limestone, and I am more qualified in that area than Dr Hoyle. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (10/28/85)
In article <814@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <336@bcsaic.UUCP> pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes: >> >>I would also like to note that the claims have not been even slightly >>accepted. The comments made about the specimens would be highly unlikely >>given the unusual type of limestone they are found in. It is a very fine >>grained micritic limestone. It has such an even surface that it makes >>an excellant base for printing lithographic prints -- hence its common >>name of lithostone. To do what Sir Hoyle(who has little experience in >>micro-petrology) claims was done would be quite a feat indeed. > > What exactly does Hoyle claim to have done? Hoyle claims that the feather impressions were added later in a manner similar to the Piltdown Hoax. The method he proposes is a cement-like mixture. >>I'd like to see some electron microscope work (AND some >>micro-petrographic studies done first) these would show up differences >>that would be much more difinitive. > > Ditto! >> >>I'm not convinced that a cosmologist could tell the difference >>between different limestone types that occur naturally - let alone >>if cement had been used. >> > Hold it! Isn't cment essentially just crushed limestone in >water?!?! If he is trying to claim that part of the specimen is in >artificial cement he is on shaky ground! I doubt *I* could tell the >difference between fine grain cement and micritic limestone, and I am >more qualified in that area than Dr Hoyle. There is a definite difference between crushed regular limestone and micrite -- especially the micricrystalline quality of the limestone discussed here. Remember micrite rarely has what could br called a good granualr texture -- hence the microcrystalline texture it's usually described as in the literature. Crushed cement is not just limestone. It contains alumina,silica,iron oxide and magnesia that haas been burned together in a kiln,then finely pulverized. That is the only way it will react with water to form the hard matrix. The limestone has to undergo a calcining process (heating to high temperatures ,just below fusing, in order to drive off the volatiles and/or oxidizing the material) in order to change it to lime. Lime is the major reactant with water. After all these changes the calcium carbonate would not be the same structure or make up that a fine micritic ls would be. This would show up uder a microscope. One would have to be a carbonate petrologist to tell, but it is distinguishable. (Note I am basing this on the fact that the limestone that these fossils are found is an unusually distinctive limestone that would be very difficult to fake. A detrital limestone would be difficult. But all descriptions I've run across indicate that this limestone is nearly a pure micrite. This means almost no allochems or detrital material in it. Have you run across anything to the contrary?)(Carbonates are a favorite field of mine. Any info would be appreciated.) P.M.Pincha-Wagener