Contents Updated: Thursday, August 05, 1999
Beverly Halstead, shortly before his death, wrote a review of this book in the New Scientist. He said the book was destined to haunt evolutionists, biologists and geologists for decades to come. A scientific knight, a rare enough commodity, a Fellow of the Royal Society, joins with a mathematician to state unequivocally that Archaeopteryx, the famous missing link between birds and reptiles, is a fraud. The creationist literature on Archaeopteryx has used a variety of semantic tricks: the fossil is feathered, went the claim, therefore it is a bird; hence if it is a bird it cannot be an intermediate between birds and reptiles. Now, reference can be made to this "authoritative" work.
This book is couched in such intemperate language and contains such demonstrable falsehoods, as well as hardly imaginable calumnies of persons unable to defend themselves, that it is exceedingly difficult not to fall into the trap of exploding into an emotional tirade.
Because the book has the potential of being influential in an especially damaging manner, it is important that a critical evaluation should be made of it. The book falls into three distinct parts that can be categorised:
The notion that evolution proceeds in sudden jumps through genetic storms from space—viral infection—is held in ignorance or through denial of the accumulated evidence. A perusal of Molecular Evolution of Life (edited by Baltscheffsky et al, Cambridge UP, 1986) illustrates the acute embarassment felt by the scientific community over the mystical outpourings on this subject by Hoyle and his collaborator. Not one iota of evidence put forward in support of their ludicrous hypothesis has held water.
Absurdity is piled on absurdity. We are asked to believe that birds made their appearance at the end of the age of the dinosaurs as did the mammals. Such ignorance is truly bizarre, and it is really difficult to know how to handle the curious notion that because a fossil bird does not have its feathers preserved, there is no way of determining it was a bird. If a fossil mammal does not have fur and teats preserved, is there no way of being certain it was a mammal? The book is full of such nonsense.
The book is hilarious but excruciating embarrassment prevails. Its wild thesis is that lithographic lime stone was ground up into a paste and had modern feathers pressed on to it to transform a fossil dinosaur Compsognathus into the first bird. Now, this is a quite straightforward accusation and one, moreover, that can be readily investigated, but the real worry is the wilful ignorance and the crass determination to remain ignorant, whatever evidence is provided in rebuttal.
A detailed assessment of the evidence and a variety of tests were published by Alan Charig and colleagnes in Science (2 May 1986). In essence, the existence of hairline cracks and matching dendrites of manganese oxide on the opposing slabs prove that there cannot have been an artificial layer of cement. Sections through the rock prove similarly that there has been no additional material.
Five skeletons of Archaeopteryx are known bearing feather impressions. The first, the Harlem specimen was found in 1855 but not recognised as an Archaeopteryx until 1970. The London specimen was discovered in 1861, the Berlin one in 1877, the Maxburg in 1951 and the small Eichstatt specimen in 1956. The exquisite preservation of wing membranes of pterosaurs in the same sediments, and the innumerable other examples of superb preservation, attest to the genuineness of the feather impressions.
In their original article in the British Journal of Photography (8 March 1985), the authors wrote of the "tail feather with the feather veins radiating from a central axis." Examination of specimens or photographs clearly demonstrates that the long bony tail had feathers attached along both sides—modern birds do not have bony tails. This feature of Archaeopteryx is unique and is certainly because an animal like a dinosaur had feathers.
The matching slabs have slightly different texture—an observation with which the authors make a great play. Sedimentary rocks are produced by the deposition of particles of sand and mud. Rocks split along bedding planes because sedimentation is irrelgular. When an ailing or dying Archaeopteiyx flopped or dropped onto the limy muds of Solenhofen and died, it began to rot, parts of the skeleton became disarticulated and then more mud covered the carcase. Some time passed before the carcase was properly covered and the carcase itself interfered with the otherwise steady fall of sediment on to that spot. By the time it had decayed sufficiently and the bones had settled beneath the mud, sedimentation might have been continuing as before or might be now rather different, depending on many climatic and geological factors. The fact that there is a discrepancy in texture is not at all surprising to anyone with a minimal knowledge bf the deposition of,sediments. In any event, the carcase will have left the rock liable to split at that point as any geologist or palaeontologists knows.
The thesis of the book is ludicrous and can be proved to be so. This brings us to the third question. What is all this about? It is unsavoury, making this one of the most despicable pieces of writing it has been my misfortune ever to read. It displays utter contempt for minimal standards of scholarship. It displays an apparent hatred of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. It displays a most involved and twisted mentality towards palaeontologists.
Hoyle and Wiclcramasinghe claim that Sir Richard Owen knew Archaeopterix was a fraud, ensured its purchase, described the fossil in loving detail for the Royal Society, and intended subsequently to expose its fraudulent nature to prick the expanding balloon of Darwin's theory of evolution. To merely state this is to demonstrate the complete absence of any serious knowledge regarding Owen's views on transformation of types or his analysis of Archaeopteryx.
The authors made no effort to examine the history and personality of Owen. There can be no excuse for this, nor for the disgraceful calumny of one of the great founders of our discipline. To publish such libellous nonsense demeans the authors. This book will remain for a long time a stain on the reputation of both.