arndt@lymph.DEC (08/27/85)
I would like information on the continuing debate in scientific circles about the fate of ARCHAEOPTERYX as it is currently being carried on in the British Journal of Photography and elsewhere. Archaeopteryx, as you may recall, is a major piece in the weight of evidence for the theory of evolution as it is viewed as the (the ONLY one?) remains of an animal progressing from one class of vertebrates (reptiles) to another (birds). Its reptilian skeleton, replete with avian feathers, was found in Jurassic lithographic limestone (160 million yrs. old) in Bavaria in 1861. It was installed in the British Museum (Natural History) within 14 months of its finding. Of the six known specimans, the two finest-feathered were collected by members of the same family. The first was sold to the British Museum and the second went to the Berlin Natural Science Museum. Now a scientist, Lee Spetner, an American Israeli physicist who specialized in military electronics, has come forward to call for an examination of the fossils using modern technology. He and five co-authors, including the British astrophysist Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have attacked the fossils in the above mentioned journal in a series of articles. They have used enlarged photographs of the fossils which they claim show that the feathered sections were ADDED to a genuine reptilian fossil by applying a layer of cement and making feather impressions in it. It should be noted that none of the mentioned critics are 'creationists' per se although Spetner is an Orthodox Jew. This is a case of scientists 'themselves' looking at the evidence again and raising a debate. The British Museum is taking new photographs to examine the questioned areas and doing some work with 19th C glues, etc. None of the critics of the fossils are paleontologists and they, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to convince paleontologists of the strength of their claims although they have caused the fossils to be looked at again. I only raise the issue here for the sake of following an interesting debate within the scientific community. Has anyone been following this series of articles and is there any followup in other journals that they could post for our enlightenment?? Regards, Ken Arndt
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/29/85)
In article <155@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > > >Archaeopteryx, as you may recall, is a major piece in the weight of evidence >for the theory of evolution as it is viewed as the (the ONLY one?) remains of >an animal progressing from one class of vertebrates (reptiles) to another >(birds). Well, not the ONLY one. There are a few other fossils intermediate between Birds and Reptiles, they just aren't as famous. In fact some of them make even better intermediates than Archaeopteryx ever did. Then there are quite a number of fossil forms fitting in to a continuous series from Reptiles to Mammals. > Its reptilian skeleton, replete with avian feathers, was found in >Jurassic lithographic limestone (160 million yrs. old) in Bavaria in 1861. >It was installed in the British Museum (Natural History) within 14 months >of its finding. Of the six known specimans, the two finest-feathered were >collected by members of the same family. The first was sold to the British >Museum and the second went to the Berlin Natural Science Museum. > >Now a scientist, Lee Spetner, an American Israeli physicist who specialized in >military electronics, has come forward to call for an examination of the >fossils using modern technology. He and five co-authors, including the British >astrophysist Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have attacked the fossils >in the above mentioned journal in a series of articles. They have used >enlarged photographs of the fossils which they claim show that the feathered >sections were ADDED to a genuine reptilian fossil by applying a layer of cement >and making feather impressions in it. > Question, which specimens have they examined? All five of the specimens showing feather impressions or just the two collected by the one family? Is it possible that the feather impressions were not so much *added* as *enhanced*? Using such enhancement methods is quite standard, tho it is usually considered poor taste to use them on original specimens. (Also paint is actually the most common enhancement method) -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa