[net.origins] archeopteryx: THE PILTDOWN CHICKEN

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