Hoyle & Wickramhisinghe: Morons

[Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)]

WARNING: Holtz venting his spleen below.

>The trouble would not exactly the splitting (that occurs quite often), but
>the fact that all the feathers would be visible completely. Feathers are not
>flat and it's almost impossible that the creature would be fossilised with
>*all* the wing and tail feathers nicely flat in one plane.

H&W are unfamiliar with road kills, I guess.  And, of course, they are NOT
all in one plane, but are imbircated (i.e. the edges of one overlap the
edges of the next).
>
>>i doubt that owen had the capability to produce such a fake that would
>>withstand 150 years of scrutiny!  building the limestone like in the
>>5 specimens is something that has only recently been accomplished by 
>>tile companies who want such stone without having to quarry it. 
>
>1) Owen did no do it himself, he let someone in Germany do it.

The idea that Owen would go out of his way to help the Darwinists is
laughable if you know about the politics of the time.

>2) They are genuine Compsognathus remains. "Only" the feather imprints are
>fakes.
>Read the book...

I have.  It sucks.  Hoyle and Wickramisinghe are morons: knighted (Hoyle),
Nobel awarded (Hoyle again) morons, but morons nonetheless when it comes to
comparative anatomy and stratigraphy.

1) Their art sucks.  *I* can draw better than them, and anyone checking the
anatomical figures in my papers can see how bad that is.

2) Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx are about as similar as chickens and
seagulls.  ANYONE with an open mind can easily identify which specimens are
Compys (short arms, propubic) and which are Archies (long arms, opsithopubic).

3) Their writing sucks.  Even Duane Gish is a better read!  (shudder).
>
>>besides what do astronomers know about geology or paleontology?
>
>Is that relevant. Read the book. They objections they have about the fakes
>(let's call them that) seem correct. And they _are_ scientists, and they did
>do a lot of research, or at least so it seems, judging from the book.

Yeah, so it seems.  Granted, their heydays have long passed, but...
>
>>without having read the book, i cannot say they
>>may not be correct, but my geological instincts make me very suspicious
>>about their arguments coming as they do from star gazers.
>
>Then I would advise you to read the book. Apart from the fact if you agree
>with them or not, it's an interesting book in any case...

Actually, it IS more enjoyable than their others, such as _Evolution from
Space_ and _Diseases from Space_.  But it still sucks.



Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Dept. of Geology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD  20742
Email:Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
Fax: 301-314-9661
Phone:301-405-4084