Archeopteryx problem
Siegmar Schleif
Hello All!
My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
This was shown by
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A Case of
Fossil Forgery"
Sir Fred Hoyle is a famous scientist, he is a respected physicist, not a member
of a creation institute ICR or something else!
But I would like to give here reasons why I think that Archaeopteryx is a
fraud:
There is the WWW page
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html
There are arguments given that Archaeopteryx is NOT a fraud.
First this fraud argument deals only with the London and the Berlin specimen.
But there are 4 other specimen. The main problem is : Do they show feathers ?
On this WWW page it is claimed:
"This was reiterated by Hoyle et al. (1985), who suggested that
the feather impressions on the Teyler, Eichstatt and Maxberg specimens
were too poor to be accepted as feathers.
This is incorrect. It is true that none of the other
specimens have feather impressions as good as
those found on the London and Berlin specimens and that
the recognition of feathers on the Teyler
specimen would not be possible without reference to
the London and Berlin specimens. However,
the Eichstatt specimen has clear feather impressions and
the Maxberg specimen has impressions in
which the structure of the feather is discernable as
being typical of that in modern birds (de Beer
1954; von Heller 1959; Charig et al. 1986) "
1. The Teyler specimen shows no feathers. I have read the article of
Ostrom, J. H. (1970) in SCIENCE, the pictures in this article show that
this specimen shows no feathers.
2. The Eichstaett specimen: There is a recent article by P. Wellnhofer
in a recent german popular science journal SPEKTRUM der WISSENSCHAFT,
a photo of the Eichstaett specimen is shown. NO feathers are visible!
Sorry, have a look on this photo, you will see: No feathers are visible !
In 1988 there was an article in BILD der WISSENSCHAFT ( also a german
popular science journal) : They show different photos of the
Eichstaett specimen. I could not see any feather on this photos!
3. The Solnhofer specimen: There was a article 1988 in SCIENCE, Author:
P. Wellnhofer, two figures were presented: A photo and a sketch of the
specimen. Please have a look on the photo: You will not see any feather.
But the sketch ( figure 2) shows feathers. It is claimed that there are
indications of shafts of feathers. But : What were the reasons that
the owner of the specimen thought several years that this specimen
was Compsognathus? Answer : No feathers are visible!
4. The Maxberg specimen: This specimen can not count! Reason: No
scientific examination is possible. The specimen is lost! Since 1974
no scientist was allowed to study this specimen. And today nobody knows
who is the owner of this specimen. The old owner E. Opitsch has perhaps
destroyed this specimen? Perhaps he has sold this specimen ?
After his death this specimen was not found. It is claimed that feathers
are visible, but only casts of this specimen exist. So it is impossible
to make further studies.
So feathers are only visible on the Berlin and London specimen.
I have never heard that there was a scientific study which has shown that
the Berlin specimen was not a fraud. But this is essential:
Both specimen were found and sold for high prices by Karl
Häberlein (in 1861 for 600 pounds - the London specimen) and his son,
Ernst, (in 1877 for 36,000 gold marks - the Berlin specimen).
It is clear: If the London specimen is a fraud, then the Berlin specimen
perhaps too ?
So let me concentrate on the London specimen:
In a letter to the science journal NATURE
N. Wickramasinghe and F. Hoyle, "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird?",
Vol. 324, 18/25 December 1986,p. 622
both authors say that they found different material on the part where
feathers are visible and where feathers are not visible:
"The sample from the rock matrix shows a characteristic crystalline structure
exactly as in the other specimens of the solnhofen limestone, with identical
X-ray resonance spectra. But the sample from the suspected material shows a
non-crystalline structure resembling that of amorphous material bound by an
organic glue. X-ray resonance spectra showed large amounts of silicon
as well as lead and chlorine which are certainly azlien to native
Solnhofen limestone"
I have never seen an answer concerning this claim of any responsible person
of the British Museum, neither in NATURE nor in SCIENCE.
The only answer I have found is on the mentioned talk.origin FAQ WWW page:
" - Some time prior to the removal of samples from the Archaeopteryx
specimen, the specimen was thoroughly cleaned to remove
accumulated grime and old preservatives.
- This process was highly successful, but not 100% successful.
- This process was not carried out under 'clean' or dust-free conditions.
- This process also required some vigourous brushing of the specimen
away from the actua; bones (especially the wing area).
- Once cleaned, a master silicone rubber mould was taken.
When these facts are taken into consideration, a much more
likely explanation presents itself.
The "unknown substance" analysed by Spetner et al. was, most probably
a fragment of silicone
rubber which had becomed entrained just below the surface of the
slab during its fluid phase."
This is a poor excuse:
Why was this cleaning done ? Was it done to mislead Hoyle et al.?
Why was no silicone rubber material found on the other parts of the
specimen and only on the part were feather traces are visible ?
Traces of silicone rubber were not found by Hoyle et al. on the part
were no wings are visible ( see citation of the NATURE letter)!
This questions have to be answered, this questions are justified!
It is clear that the answer given on this WWW page is not sufficient.
It is also clear that the Berlin specimen needs a detailed study.
Detailed investigations are necessary !
So please tell me if there is ONE Archaeopteryx specimen, which is
accessible for serious scientists and where reasonable feather
impressions are visible and where no doubt exists that there is
a forgery!
In this case I would change my opinion!
At the end I want say please, that I am neither an evolutionist nor
a creationist.
Thank you very much!
Yours sincerely
S. Schleif
Christopher Brochu
Siegmar Schleif wrote:
>
> Hello All!
> My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
No.
[shortened]
>
> 1. The Teyler specimen shows no feathers.
The latest specimen discovered had no skull. Are we to conclude that
those specimens with skulls are also forgeries, because the animal
obviously had no head?
Lack of preservation is not evidence of absence. Go back and read the
T.O. faq carefully.
chris
--
::::::::::::::::
Christopher Brochu
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
Ben Waggoner
Siegmar Schleif (sch...@naxos.desy.de) wrote:
: Hello All!
: My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
: Sir Fred Hoyle is a famous scientist, he is a respected physicist, not
a member
: of a creation institute ICR or something else!
Yes, but that doesn't make him an expert paleontologist. I wouldn't expect
Bob Bakker, Simon Conway Morris, or Stephen Jay Gould to be expert critics
of quantum physics.
: But I would like to give here reasons why I think that Archaeopteryx is a
: fraud:
<snip>
Most of the arguments come down to the fact that you can't see the
feathers in published photographs of the specimens (other than the Berlin
and London specimens).
I'm not an Archaeopteryx expert, but I've handled a lot of fossils with
very fine, subtle details, and I can tell you: It may be impossible to
take a photograph that shows all the details of a fossil clearly. For
instance, lighting a specimen from above may wash out fine detail in low
relief. Lighting it obliquely may bring out detail but also cast shadows
over parts of the fossil, and the direction from which the light comes may
drastically affect what structures are visible. Coating the fossil with
ammonium chloride or other such stuff may bring out relief but obscure
color differences. And so on.
I don't have the pictures you describe in front of me, but if they were
taken for the purpose of showing the entire specimen as a whole, they
might not show detail of the feathers. That's just a limitation of the
medium. There's no substitute for examining the original specimens
themselves -- or at least examining photographs from different angles,
with different lighting, etc.
Think about it this way: Would you trust a jeweler who judged whether
diamonds were real or fake -- based only on photographs? Or an art expert
who appraised paintings -- based only on single slides? If you owned a
first edition of the complete works of Goethe, with his autograph, and you
wanted it examined for valuation -- would you just give the expert a
photocopy of the first page and expect him or her to make a good decision?
No? Then be careful about jumping to conclusions from single photographs.
--
Ben Waggoner
Mena Ryan
Ben Waggoner wrote:
>
> Siegmar Schleif (sch...@naxos.desy.de) wrote:
> : Hello All!
> : My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
>
> a member
> : of a creation institute ICR or something else!
>
> Bob Bakker, Simon Conway Morris, or Stephen Jay Gould to be expert critics
> of quantum physics.
>
> : fraud:
>
on the Discovery Channel the other night. Does this bring us back to
the thread about too much pseudo-scence on TV?
Mena Ryan
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
sch...@naxos.desy.de (Siegmar Schleif) wrote:
>
> Hello All!
> My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
>
> This was shown by
>
> Hoyle and Wickramasinghe "Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A Case of
> Fossil Forgery"
>
> Sir Fred Hoyle is a famous scientist, he is a respected physicist, not a member
> of a creation institute ICR or something else!
In point of fact, some of Hoyle's ideas in astrophysics/cosmology
(i.e., Steady-State Universe) and biology (i.e., genes from space) are
of similar lackluster logical and scientific rigor...
> 1. The Teyler specimen shows no feathers. I have read the article of
> Ostrom, J. H. (1970) in SCIENCE, the pictures in this article show that
> this specimen shows no feathers.
If you examine a good photograph of the specimen (for example, Fig. 5
in Ostrom's first article in the Eichstaett conference volume The Beginning
of Birds (1985, eds. M.K. Hecht, J.H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, and P. Wellnhofer)
you can see the impressions of the racis (stem) of many of the flight
feathers, although the smaller structures are not plainly visible.
> 4. The Maxberg specimen: This specimen can not count! Reason: No
> scientific examination is possible. The specimen is lost! Since 1974
> no scientist was allowed to study this specimen. And today nobody knows
> who is the owner of this specimen. The old owner E. Opitsch has perhaps
> destroyed this specimen? Perhaps he has sold this specimen ?
> After his death this specimen was not found. It is claimed that feathers
> are visible, but only casts of this specimen exist. So it is impossible
> to make further studies.
Photographs of this specimen (see the Ostrom article mentioned above)
show that feathers were about the only interesting aspect of this
specimen.
Also, the more recently discovered Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen
(see Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus
den Solnhofener Schchten. ARCHAEOPTERYX 11:1-47) for yet another
specimen with feather impressions.
Siegmar Schleif
: : But I would like to give here reasons why I think that Archaeopteryx is a
: : fraud:
: <snip>
Hello !
Thank you for your answer!
Let me explain the problem:
I am not a geologist but a physicist.
I have heard that there were some rumors that
Archeopteryx would be a fraud.
I have then checked the talk.origin FAQ and found some useful
information.
A few weeks ago I bought the SPEKTRUM der WISSENSCHAFT
journal( a special issue ) ( several articles
are a translation of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN)
I have checked the photos, but I could see
feathers impressions only on
the London specimen,
the Berlin specimen
and the Maxberg specimen ( which is lost since 1974!)
I could not see any feather impression on the photo of the Eichstaett
specimen.
: Most of the arguments come down to the fact that you can't see the
: feathers in published photographs of the specimens (other than the Berlin
: and London specimens).
OK, but I am not a worker in the field.
The only thing I can do is checking the literature!
I think that I have done this. But if someone has some new
literature I am very grateful if he/she can give me any advice.
: I'm not an Archaeopteryx expert, but I've handled a lot of fossils with
: very fine, subtle details, and I can tell you: It may be impossible to
: take a photograph that shows all the details of a fossil clearly. For
: instance, lighting a specimen from above may wash out fine detail in low
: relief. Lighting it obliquely may bring out detail but also cast shadows
: over parts of the fossil, and the direction from which the light comes may
: drastically affect what structures are visible. Coating the fossil with
: ammonium chloride or other such stuff may bring out relief but obscure
: color differences. And so on.
The articles I have studied are more or less scientific articles.
Example:
I have read the article of Charig et al. in
SCIENCE Vol 232, p. 622. ( May 1986)
They showed that all arguments given by Hoyle et al.
at that time were invalid. Agreed!
But then I read the letter of Hoyle et al in NATURE 324 ( December 1986).
Here Hoyle et al. gave new arguments ( see my previous post).
This results depend not on photos but on X-Ray spectroscopy.
: I don't have the pictures you describe in front of me, but if they were
: taken for the purpose of showing the entire specimen as a whole, they
: might not show detail of the feathers. That's just a limitation of the
: medium. There's no substitute for examining the original specimens
: themselves -- or at least examining photographs from different angles,
: with different lighting, etc.
In the article of BILD der WISSENSCHAFT ( May 1988, p. 82) four photos
of the Eichstaett specimen were shown:
One with normal light,
one with a so called "pseudorelief procedure",
one with UV light,
one photo, where contrasts were treated with a logetronograph
( I do not know the english translation for this word, sorry)
In the article of P. Wellnhofer, SCIENCE Vol 240, p.1790 you can read:
"...one is eager to see wether the Solnhofen specimen shows traces of
feathers. Under low angle illumination there are distinct parallel
impressions originating from the lower arm of the left wing
skeleton. These features ( Fig. 2) are interpreted as imprints of feather
shafts. Furthermore, impressions subparallel to the left finger may mark
the outline of the wing."
But figure 2 is the sketch, not the photo.
Why were this low angle illumination not published ?
Does anyone know, if low angle illuminations are available?
Has anyone here seen the original Maxberg specimen and
can confirm that there were feathers visible ?
Thank you!
[snip]
: --
: Ben Waggoner
Yours sincerely
S. Schleif
Chris Nedin
In article <5je3ip$2so$1...@enterprise.desy.de>, sch...@naxos.desy.de
(Siegmar Schleif) wrote:
> Hello All!
> My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
>
> (also a german popular science journal) : They show different photos
> of the Eichstaett specimen. I could not see any feather on this
> photos!
> 3. The Solnhofer specimen: There was a article 1988 in SCIENCE, Author:
> P. Wellnhofer, two figures were presented: A photo and a sketch of
> the specimen. Please have a look on the photo: You will not see any
> feather. But the sketch ( figure 2) shows feathers. It is claimed
> that there are indications of shafts of feathers. But : What were the
> reasons that the owner of the specimen thought several years that
> this specimen was Compsognathus? Answer : No feathers are visible!
> 4. The Maxberg specimen: This specimen can not count! Reason: No
> scientific examination is possible. The specimen is lost! Since 1974
> no scientist was allowed to study this specimen. And today nobody
> knows who is the owner of this specimen. The old owner E. Opitsch has
> perhaps destroyed this specimen? Perhaps he has sold this specimen ?
> After his death this specimen was not found. It is claimed that
> feathers are visible, but only casts of this specimen exist. So it is
> impossible to make further studies.
1. The paper in Science by Ostrom (1970) announced the reinterpretation of
a specimen originally described as a pterodactyl and thus the finding of
another _Archaeopteryx_ - the Teyler, or more correctly, the Haarlem,
specimen. This was a preliminary announcement which carried little detail
and only one photograph, but even this commented that, "faint impressions
of wing feathers are also preserved" (Ostrom 1970, p. 538). For a
detailed description of the Haarlem specimen, including the feather
impressions, see Ostrom (1972).
2. With regard to the Eichstatt specimen, the publication you mention
does not include a detailed description, but appears to be a popular
science article. For a detailed description of the specimen and close-up
photographs of the feather impressions, see Wellnhofer (1974).
3. Again, the Science article you refer to (Wellnhofer 1988a) with regard
to the Solnhofen specimen is a preliminary announcement of the finding of
a new specimen. It does not contain a detailed description and only has
one photograph. This is of the whole specimen and thus was not taken
under low angle light (to show the feather traces) because that would
obscure other details of the specimen. A much more detailed description
of the specimen exists, see Wellnhofer (1988b). With regard to the
Compsognathus identification, the source you cite clearly states,
"according to the collector, an amateur, the specimen was found many
years ago and no data were kept. After preliminary preparation, carried
out only recently, he took it for a speciman of the small theropod
dinosaur _Compsognathus_, rather than _Archaeopteryx_." Thus the
_Compsognathus_ identification was done by an amateur, not a professional
palaeontologist.
4. The information obtained from the Maxburg specimen is still valid
because a detailed description of it exists, with photographs. It was
described by Heller (1959) and not Wellnhofer as stated in the FAQ (see
below for full reference). Since the specimen was worth conservatively,
at least US$750,000 it is thought that it has been sold.
Also the Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen apparently has a small keel and
feathers, and is another nail in the coffin of the forgery claims, since
it too possesses feather traces.
The letter by Hoyle et al. is a short correspondence containing little
information and taken from a larger article (Spetner et al. 1988) which
is mentioned and forms the basis of much of the forgery FAQ. Their claims
are misleading since they are talking about a round amorphous structure,
not the rock matrix. As pointed out in the FAQ, there is no evidence of
glue nor that the amorphous substance is organic. There is no evidence
that the amorphous substance was found in the rock matrix, in fact the
photograph they provide clearly shows the substance is separate from the
rock. The chemical composition of the amorphous substance given by
Spenter et al. (silicon, chlorine and lead + indeterminates) is entirely
in agreement with it being a fragment of silicone rubber. It is not part
of the rock, it is not glue.
There has been little interest in the claims of Hoyle et al. because at
every turn, their claims have been shown to be false. The various
specimens of Archaeopteryx do show feather impressions. Your claims that
they do not appear to be based on preliminary reports or popular accounts
and not the detailed descriptions which clearly show the presence of
feather traces.
Chris
Heller, F. (1959) Ein dritter Archaeopteryx-Fund aus den Solnhofener
Platterkalken von Langenaltheim/Mfr. Erlanger Geologische Abhandlungen,
31: 1-25.
Ostrom, J.H. (1970) Archaeopteryx: Notice of a "new" specimen. Science,
170: 537-538.
Ostrom, J.H. (1972) Description of the Archaeopteryx specimen in the
Teyler Museum, Haarlen. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van
Wetenschappen, B, 75: 289-305.
Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M. (1988)
Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. The British Journal of
Photography, 135: 14-17.
Wellnhofer, P. (1974) Das funfte skelettexemplar von Archaeopteryx.
Palaeontographica A, 147: 169-216.
Wellnhofer, P. (1988a) A new specimen of Archaeopteryx. Science, 240:
1790-1792.
Wellnhofer, P. (1988b) Ein neuer Exemplar von Archaeopteryx.
Archaeopteryx, 6: 1-30.
cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au *my views only* ne...@ediacara.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dept. of Geology & Geophysics | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| University of Adelaide | C Wieland Director, |
| South Australia 5005 | Creation Research Foundation, |
| ph: 61 8 8303 5959 | Queensland Australia |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au *my views only* ne...@ediacara.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dept. of Geology & Geophysics | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
| University of Adelaide | C Wieland, Director, |
| South Australia 5005 | Creation Research Foundation, |
| ph: 61 8 8303 5959 | Queensland, Australia |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Siegmar Schleif
Chris Nedin (cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au) wrote:
: In article <5je3ip$2so$1...@enterprise.desy.de>, sch...@naxos.desy.de
: (Siegmar Schleif) wrote:
: > Hello All!
: > My Question : Is Archeopteryx a fraud ?
:
: 2. With regard to the Eichstatt specimen, the publication you mention
: does not include a detailed description, but appears to be a popular
: science article. For a detailed description of the specimen and close-up
: photographs of the feather impressions, see Wellnhofer (1974).
Eichstaett specimen:
I had now a closer look on the original photo in the popular
german science journal BILD der WISSENSCHAFT ( 1988) where
the different photos were printed. I must apologize, one photo shows
very weak impressions of feathers. I have not seen it
on my photocopy which I have taken from this photos (entropy increases !)
: 4. The information obtained from the Maxburg specimen is still valid
: because a detailed description of it exists, with photographs. It was
: described by Heller (1959) and not Wellnhofer as stated in the FAQ (see
: below for full reference). Since the specimen was worth conservatively,
: at least US$750,000 it is thought that it has been sold.
Maxberg specimen:
I have now also seen a photo of the original Maxberg specimen, feathers
are visible!
:
: Also the Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen apparently has a small keel and
: feathers, and is another nail in the coffin of the forgery claims, since
: it too possesses feather traces.
Yes , I can confirm this! I have seen a photo of this specimen too.
There are good feather impressions visible on
the Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen!
So I agree, that at least this three specimens show feathers.
I must apologize : Archeopteryx is NOT a fraud !
Please publish more photos of this specimens !
: cne...@geology.adelaide.edu.au *my views only* ne...@ediacara.org
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: | Dept. of Geology & Geophysics | "How can Nedin be trusted" |
: | University of Adelaide | C Wieland Director, |
: | South Australia 5005 | Creation Research Foundation, |
: | ph: 61 8 8303 5959 | Queensland Australia |
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much!
Yours sincerely
Siegmar Schleif
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
sch...@naxos.desy.de (Siegmar Schleif) wrote:
> So I agree, that at least this three specimens show feathers.
>
> I must apologize : Archeopteryx is NOT a fraud !
>
Siegmar,
I must publically congratulate you. Sometimes it seems
that there are too few people around who are a) willing to have their
minds changed by the presentation of new evidence and b) willing to
publically acknowledge that they had their minds changed by the
presentation of new evidence.
Bravo!
Gerrit Hanenburg
Btw, does anyone have more info on Protoarchaeopteryx robusta, a new
fossil of a primitive bird from Liaoning, China?
I read about it in my local newspaper but it didn't mention the source
of the original publication. I couldn't find anything in Science or
Nature.
It seems to be intermediate between Sinosauropteryx and Archaeopteryx.
Gerrit
(to mail me, remove .nomail from the address)
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
G.Han...@inter.nl.net.nomail (Gerrit Hanenburg) wrote:
>
>
> Btw, does anyone have more info on Protoarchaeopteryx robusta, a new
> fossil of a primitive bird from Liaoning, China?
> I read about it in my local newspaper but it didn't mention the source
> of the original publication. I couldn't find anything in Science or
> Nature.
There has not been a paper published on it yet, but one is in the
works. (There may have been a preliminary notice in the journal
Chinese Geology, but this is an exceedingly difficult publication
to find...)
> It seems to be intermediate between Sinosauropteryx and Archaeopteryx.
Indeed. Then again, so are Ornitholestes, Tyrannosaurus, Ornithomimus,
Troodon, Oviraptor, Segnosaurus, Dromaeosaurus, Deinonychus, Velociraptor,
etc., etc....
The news media (and from the reports, some of the Chinese paleontologists)
seem to miss the basic information that, based on the skeletal morphology,
Sinosauropteryx (probably a junior synonym for Compsognathus) is NOT
very closely related to birds. It represents a very, very primitive
coelurosaurian form. The taxa mentioned above all share some derived
characters with birds which are not found in compsognathid-grade
coelurosaurs.