Re: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!

[Jarno Peschier <jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl>]

At 10:35 16-01-96 -0500, you wrote:
>>The other one is "Achaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird. A Case of Fossil
>>Forgery." by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Christopher Davies
>>Publishers Ltd., Swansea, 1986, ISBN 0-7154-0665-5). I saw it in a
>>second-hand bookshop and simply could not leave without it, because it
>>seemed so interesting....
>
>This book created quite a stir when it came out, resulting in a detailed
>re-examination of the specimens that amounted to a complete refutation of
>Hoyle and Wikramasinghe's thesis.  There is no way that the specimens are
>forgeries -

Then, with what arguments where the proofs of forgery in the book refuted?
Just being curious of course...

>and, of course, even if they feathers were forgeries that would
>not explain the many birdlike features of the skeleton.  In other words, if
>Archie had been found with no trave of feathers it might have taken longer
>for people to notice its bird affinities but its place in the avian family
>tree would, on cladistic analysis, be pretty much identical to that it holds
>now.

Mmm, thanks for the reply.

>Further, you must remember that (as I recall) H&W felt a need to "explain
>away" Archaeopteryx because it didn't fit in with their theory that life on
>earth was "seeded" frpm outer space without evolution.

Right. For those of us on this list who haven't read the book, that's where
the "being astronomers" of the authors is surfacing in the book.

>Others here may be able to give further, or more accurate, details - but the
>main message is that the book is baloney.

Then I will keep it as such. It still is a nice book to have. Just the nice
pictures of the British specimen would be worth having it.

          Jarno Peschier, jpeschie@cs.ruu.nl, 2:2802/245.1@Fido
      162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
     What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.