Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Why did the Archaeopteryx cross the road . . .
Message-ID: <691@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 15:23:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.691
Posted: Thu Aug 29 15:23:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 03:42:57 EDT
References: <155@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 43
Summary: 

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