Re: archaeopteryx

["Christopher Straughn" <chrisas@elnet.com>]

> I am stepping out from my lurking post because of something I saw on tv.  
> It would appear that there are a group of people who feel that 
> archaeopteryx (forgive me if my spelling is off) is just an elaborate 
> hoax.  I'm just wondering what y'all have to say about that.

The whole hoax thing has been disproven time and time again by the 
presence of both sides of the mold.  It's possible to hoax a bird 
skeleton in limestone, but it's almost impossible to make a cast of 
the skeleton that perfectly fits onto the preimage.   Also, there is 
the existence of about seven(?) different specimens, so it would be 
unreasonable to say that there were several hoaxes made that are so 
alike in all aspects that they were all called Archaeopteryx 
lithographica.  I saw the specimen on display at the Field Museum in 
Chicago and it certainly didn't look like a hoax.  It seems that the 
only people who think Archaeopteryx is a hoax are people who are 
unwilling to accept the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs.
Chris Straughn

Visit my homepage at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1868

Bovoj estas viaj amikoj.