Proof for Evolution! (?)
ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A FAKE
Now we come to a totally opposite position: Archaeopteryx is not an extinct bird, but rather a planned hoax—and there is clear evidence to prove it!
At the same time that mounting evidence was beginning to indicate it to be a carefully contrived fake, confirmed evolutionists had been moving toward the position that Archaeopteryx was only an ancient bird, and not a half-reptile/half-bird. By calling it a "bird," they avoided the crisis that struck the scientific world—and the major museums—when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953.
THREE INITIAL PROBLEMS—Before considering the Hoyle/Watkins exposé, let us first look at some other facets of this overall problem.
You will observe, in the following discussion, that there are some observational differences between this and the preceding approach to the problem. For example, while some experts consider Archaeopteryx to have had a body like a bird, those who consider it a fake believe the fossilized body to be that of a reptile. Somebody took a reptile fossil and carefully added wings to it!
Here is an important analysis. You will want to read it carefully:
"Like the later Piltdown man, Archaeopteryx seemed a perfect intermediate form . . There are, however, disturbing analogies between Piltdown man and Archaeopteryx that have come to light with careful study. Both are hodgepodges of traits found in the forms they are supposed to link,—with each trait present in essentially fully developed form rather than in an intermediate state! Allowing for alterations, Piltdown’s jaw was that of an orangutan; Archaeopteryx’s skull was a dinosaur skull. Moreover, Piltdown man’s cranium was a Homo sapiens skull; Archaeopteryx’s feathers were ordinary feathers, differing in no significant way from those of a strong flying bird such as a falcon . . The lack of proper and sufficient bony attachments for powerful flight muscles is enough to rule out the possibility that Archaeopteryx could even fly, feathers notwithstanding."—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), pp. 58-60.
1 - A profitable business. There are those who believe that Archaeopteryx was a carefully contrived fake. It would have been relatively easy to do. The nature of the hard limestone would make it easy to carefully engrave something on it. Since the first Archaeopteryx sold for such an exorbitant price to the highest bidder (the British Museum), the second, produced 16 years later, had a reptile-like head—and sold for a tremendous amount to the museum in Berlin. The owner of that quarry made a small fortune on the sale of each of those two specimens.
2 - Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint streaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines—nothing else!
It would be relatively easy for someone to take a genuine fossil of a Compsognathus—and carefully scratch those lines onto the surface of the smooth, durable limestone. All that would be needed would be a second fossil of a bird as a pattern to copy the markings from,—and then inscribe its wing pattern onto the reptile specimen. That is all that would be required, and the result would be a fabulous amount of profit. And both specimens did produce just that!
3 - All specimens came from the same place. Keep in mind that all six of those specimens were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia, Germany, near the city of Eichstatt. Nowhere else—anywhere in the world—have any Archaeopteryx specimens ever been discovered!
Living in Germany, at the same time that these six specimens were found, was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). He would have been in the prime of life at the time both specimens were brought forth. Haeckel was the most rabid Darwinist advocate on the continent; and it is well-known that he was very active at the time the finds were made. He was continually seeking for new "proofs" of evolution, so he could use them in his lecture circuit meetings. He loved verbal and visual illustrations; and it is now known that he spent time, on the side, enthusiastically inventing them!
It is also known that Haeckel had unusual artistic ability that he put to work, producing pro-evolution frauds. He would fraudulently touching up and redrawing charts of ape skeletons and embryos so that they would appear to prove evolutionary theory. He had both the ability and the mind set for the task. He could also make the money he would make. You will find more information on his fraudulent artistry in chapter 16, Vestiges and Recapitulation. There is no doubt that Haeckel had the daring, the skill, the time, and the energy to forge those Archaeopteryx specimens. In those years, he always seemed to have the money to set aside time for anything he wanted to do in the way of lecturing or drawing charts. He even supported a mistress for a number of years. Perhaps some of that money came from engraving bird feathers onto reptile fossils and, then, splitting the profits of Archaeopteryx sales with the quarry owners.
The most delicate tracery can easily be etched onto limestone blocks. About 35 years ago, the present writer had opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best 19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography. Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving, used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth surface.
is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily superimpose the
marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an actual small
dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be drawn onto
limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and bond
certificates with them.. About 35 years ago, the present writer had
opportunity to work for several weeks with two of the best
19th-century art materials: copper engraving and stone lithography.
Both were used, in the 19th-century, in printing and able to
reproduce the most delicate of marks. This is because both copper
and high-quality limestone have such a close-grained, smooth
surface. Bavarian and Franconian limestone quarries produced the
best lithographic blocks. ("Lithos" and "graphos" means "stone
writing.") Our present lithographic process, which uses thin metal
plates, is a descendant of the limestone block method (which
utilized printing from a flat surface because oily ink in the
markings would not mix with the water on the smooth surface between
the markings). The other primary method, that of copper engraving,
used the intaglio method of fine tracery marks cut into a smooth
surface. There is no doubt but that any good engraver could easily
superimpose the marks of outward radiating flight feathers over an
actual small dinosaur fossil. The delicate tracery which could be
drawn onto limestone blocks, made it possible to print banknotes and
bond certificates with them.
"The feathers of Archaeopteryx suggest that the creature was a skillful flyer or glider, at the same time that its skeleton suggests otherwise. Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of characteristics almost impossible to interpret, let alone to base evolutionary theories on!"—W. Frair and P. Davis, Case for Creation (1983), p. 81.
THE HOYLE/WATSON EXPOSÉ—It was not until the 1980s that the most formidable opposition to these Solnhofen limestone specimens developed, Here is the story of what took place:
1 - Background of the investigations. In 1983, M. Trop wrote an article questioning the authenticity of the specimen ("Is Archaeopteryx a Fake?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 121-122). Two years later, a series of four articles appeared in the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985 issues), declaring Archaeopteryx to be a carefully contrived hoax.
Those articles were authored by some of the leading scientists in England: Fred Hoyle, R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner. This brought the controversy to the attention of the scientific world. They declared in print that Archaeopteryx was a definite hoax, just as much as Piltdown man had been a hoax.
Keep in mind as we discuss these specimens that, of all six, only the London and Berlin specimens are usable; the rest are hardly recognizable as anything. So all the evidence, pro and con, must come from one or the other of those two specimens.
In 1983, these six leading British scientists went to the London Museum and carefully studied and photographed the specimen. The specimen is contained in a slab and a counterslab—thus giving a front and back view of it. Here is what these well-known scientists discovered:
2 - Slab mismatch. The two slabs do not appear to match. If the specimen was genuine, the front and back slabs should be mirror images of one another, but they are not. This one fact, alone, is not to prove the specimen a fake.
A comparison of the present specimen with an 1863 drawing indicates an alteration had been later made to the left wing of the specimen. The 1863 left wing was totally mismatched on the two slabs; the later alteration brought the match closer together.
3 - Artificial feathers. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others decided that the body skeleton and arms were genuine, but the feather markings (those shallow lines radiating outward from the forelimbs) had been carefully imprinted on the fossil by an unknown hand.
4 - Cement blobs. They also found additional evidence of the forgery: Cement blobs had been used during the etching process.
"They suggested the following procedure for creating the feather impressions: 1) the forgers removed rock from around the tail and ‘wing’ (forelimb) regions, 2) they then applied a thin layer of cement, probably made from limestone of the Solnhofen quarries, to the excavated areas, and 3) they impressed feathers on the cement and held them in place by adhesive material (referred to as ‘chewing gum’ blobs). Attempts to remove the blobs from the rock were obvious—the slabs were scraped, brushed, and chipped. However, an oversight remained in the cleaning process: one ‘chewing gum’ blob and fragments of others were left behind."—Venus E. Clausen, "Recent Debate over Archaeopteryx.
5 - Museum withdraws specimen. After their initial examination of the London specimen, they requested permission for a neutral testing center to further examine the blob areas, utilizing electron microscope, carbon 14 dating, and spectrophotometry. Three months later, museum officials sent word that the specimen was being withdrawn from further examination.
6 - History of forgeries. Hoyle, Watkins, and the others then checked into historical sources, and declared that they had discovered that, dating back to the early 18th century, the Solnhofen limestone area was notorious for its fossil forgeries. Genuine fossils, taken from the limestone quarries, had been altered and then sold to museums. These non-Archaeopteryx fossils brought good money because they appeared to be strange new species.
7 - Discoveries follow prediction. Thomas H. Huxley, Darwin’s British champion, whom he called his "bulldog," had predicted that fossils of strange new species would be found. Hoyle, et. al, believe that, thus encouraged, the forgers went to work to produce them.
8 - The Meyer connection. Of the six Archaeopteryx fossils, only three specimens show the obvious feather impressions. These three specimens were sent to Hermann von Meyer, in Germany, who, within a 20-year period, analyzed and described them. Hoyle and company suggest that they came in to Meyer as reptiles and left with wings! It just so happens that Meyer worked closely with the Haberlein family, and they acquired his two best feathered reptile fossils—and then sold them to the museums. It was the Haberlein family that made the profit—not the quarry owners. It would be relatively easy for them to split some of it with Meyer.
You can find all of the above material in four issues of the British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). Also see W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil Is Challenged" in New York Times, May 7, 1985, pp. C1, C14; T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil ‘Fraud,’ " in New Scientist 1467:49-50; and G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx ‘Fraud’ " in New Scientist 1447:3.
9 - Aftermath. As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position. As might be expected, a torrent of wrath arose from the evolutionary community as a result of these four articles. Defenders of evolutionary theory went into an absolute rage, but the six scientists held to their position.
This brought still further uproar. It had been the same British Museum that had been duped into the Piltdown Man hoax, which had been exposed only 32 years earlier ("found" from 1908 to 1912 only a few miles from Darwin’s old home, publicly announced that same year and shown to be a hoax in 1953).
For a time, the British Museum refused to relent, but the pressure was too great, so the museum arranged for a special committee, composed of a select variety of scientists, to review the matter. They examined the slabs; and in 1986 reported that, in their opinion, Archaeopteryx had no blobs. With this, the British Museum announced that the case was closed and the slabs would be unavailable for further examination. But the slab mismatch was not denied, and it was far greater evidence than the blobs.
Is Archaeopteryx a flying reptile, just another bird, or a fraud—a reptile with wings added?
Take your pick; either way it is definitely not a transitional species, and has no transitions leading to or from it.
3 - OTHER PROOFS
This article contains the "showcases of evolution"—the best evidences it has to offer that evolution has actually occurred and the theory is true.
In addition to the horse series and Archaeopteryx, there are several other special "evidences" in favor of evolution, which are discussed in some detail in the book The Evolution Cruncher. These include:
1 - The peppered moth ("industrial melanism’) is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection" (#1/7 Peppered Moth).
2 - Darwin’s Finches are discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."
3 - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." - Trilobites are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."
4 - Mutated bacteria and sickle-cell anemia are discussed in chapter 10, "Mutations."
5 - Radiodating and radiocarbon dating are discussed in chapter 6, "Inaccurate Dating Methods."
6 - The dates attributed to the rock strata are discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."
7 - The existence of dinosaurs in the past is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."
8 - The existence of cavemen and the discovery of "hominid bones" is discussed in chapter 13, "Ancient Man."
9 - Subspecies changes ("microevolution") is discussed in chapter 9, "Natural Selection."
10 - Changes in genes by mutations is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata." is discussed in chapter 12, "Fossils and Strata."
11 - Similarities of body parts and chemistry are discussed in chapter 15, "Similarities and Divergence."
12 - "Useless organs" is discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."
13 - Embryonic similarities are discussed in chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation."
14 - The concept that evolutionary theory is not under natural laws that would invalidate it is discussed in chapter 18, "Laws of Nature."
15 - The "overwhelming support" given by scientists to evolutionary theory is discussed throughout this book, but especially in chapters 1, "History of Evolutionary Theory" and 23, "Scientists Speak" [For an online account, go to History of Evolutionary Theory. Many, many quotations by scientists refuting evolution can be found here.]
16 - The idea that evolution is any kind of help to humanity or society is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence." is discussed in chapter 19, "Evolution, Morality and Violence."
In addition, other "evidences" and "proofs" of evolution are discussed elsewhere in this book. The evolutionary evidences we have not discussed are of secondary, or even minuscule, importance. Some of them are so complex that they are difficult for most people to grasp.
There are definite scientific facts that totally refute the evolution of matter, stars, planetoids, plants, or animals. These powerful refutations stand as a strong rock in the midst of angry waves beating upon them. Learn the most powerful of these proofs and share them with others! Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers. Remember the story of the attorney who appeared in court before the judge and said: "There are ten reasons why my client cannot be here today. The first is that he is dead." The judge replied, "That one is good enough; I do not need to hear the rest." So emphasize a few of the strong basic evidences against evolution, and you are more likely to win your hearers.
THREE SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST STELLAR ORIGINS—Four of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of matter, stars, planets, or moons would be these: (1) The impossibility of nothing making itself into something (chapter 2). (2) The impossibility of gaseous matter (hydrogen gas clouds) sticking together and forming itself by gravity or otherwise into stars or planetoids (chapter 2). (3) The impossibility of random actions of any kind in producing the intricate, interrelated, and complicated orbits of moons, planets, stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters (chapter 2). (4) The impossibility of linear, outward-flowing gas from a supposed Big Bang changing to orbital or rotational movements (chapter 2).
TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE CHANCE ORIGIN OF LIFE—Two of the powerful evidences against the chance origin of life would be these: (1) The impossibility of random formation of the DNA molecule, amino acids, proteins, or the cell (chapter 8). (2) The impossibility of non-living matter producing living organisms (chapter 7).
SEVEN SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF LIFE—Seven of the powerful evidences against the chance origin or evolution of life would be these: (1) The total lack of past evidence of trans-species changes, as shown in the fossil evidence (chapter 12). (2) The total lack of present evidence of change from one species to another (chapters 9-10). (3) The impossibility of random, accidental gene reshuffling ("natural selection") to produce new species (chapter 9). (4) The impossibility of mutations, either singly or in clusters, to produce new species (chapter 10). (5) The fact that there is no other mechanism, other than natural selection or mutations, which could possibly produce trans-species changes (chapters 9-10). (6) The fact that changes within species, are not evolution (chapter 11). (7) The beauty shown in the things of nature. An example of this would be the beauty of the flowers. Random changes would not produce such attractive forms and colors. (8) The marvelous purposive designs of the things of nature. (We have a special section on our website on the wonders of design in nature.)
TWO SPECIAL EVIDENCES AGAINST ALL TYPES OF EVOLUTION—Two of the most powerful evidences negating both inorganic and organic evolution, either in origin or development, would be the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics (chapter 25).
We have elsewhere discussed in detail all of the above proofs of Creationism.
4 - TEXTBOOK PROOFS
The textbooks generally have a trite one-two-three set of evolutionary "evidences," which generally consist of the fact that there once were dinosaurs and cavemen along with theories about "apeman" bones, fossils and strata dates, mutations, similarities, vestiges, and recapitulation.
ALL THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION
The book, Evolution, by F.H.T. Rhodes (1974), lists all the evidences and "proofs" of evolution. It is a fascinating book. Looking through these "evidences," we find that three-fourths of them consist of neutral biological, geological, or chemical facts—which provide no actual evidence in favor of evolution. The others consist of a variety of suggestive possibilities. As a rule, the strongest "evidences" for the theory center around variations within species.
Here is a brief overview of the well-presented material in Rhodes exhaustive book, covering the evidences of evolution. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!. You will notice that none of them constitute any real evidence in favor of evolution. Seventy-nine proofs are listed here. It is astonishing to read the following list!
Many different species exist. Aristotle taught evolution. Spontaneous generation could not be a cause of the origin of life. Ray and Linnaeus developed plant and animal classification systems. Lamarck’s theory of inheritable changes was an error. History of evolutionary thought for past 200 years. Darwin’s finding of various creatures on the Galapagos islands. Wallace and Malthus’ search for a mechanism whereby evolution could occur. Darwin’s idea of "natural selection." Darwin’s influential book.
Darwin’s theory revised by later discovery of mutations. Mendel’s law of genetics. DeVries discovers mutations. Morgan and Sutton study fruit flies. Surely, mutations must be the cause of all evolutionary change. General information on chromosomes. Variations in fruit flies.
Species always appear to reproduce their own kind. Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a strong proof of evolution. All living things have cells, protoplasm, metabolism, reproduction, and growth; therefore they must all have come from a common source. All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.
Different birds have similarities, therefore they must have a common ancestor. Embryos are alike, so they must have evolved from a common source. Organic degeneration and "useless organs" (vestiges) are strong evidences of evolution. Biochemical similarities indicate common ancestry. Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. Men can selectively breed new types of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.
Evolution must be implied in the fact that although some birds breed in northern climates others breed in warmer areas (population evolution). Drugs given to bacteria must have caused mutations that damaged them. Peppered moths come in two types, dark and light; and birds like to eat them. There are different species of extinct fossils. There may be a "fossil series" among Ceratopsian dinosaurs. The horse series. Archaeopteryx. The platypus. The "earliest" organisms in the sedimentary rock strata were smaller and slower, and the later ones were faster and larger. A larger number of species are found in the later strata than in the earlier strata.
Facts about genes, chromosomes, cell division, Mendelian inheritance patterns, and laws of inheritance. Probabilities of accomplishing changes within species (via Mendelian genetics). Coin tossing. XX and XY mechanisms in reproduction. Genes control reproduction. DNA is the key to inheritance. Protein manufacture. Population genetics: variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.). Gene reshuffling through recombination and crossing-over to produce changes within species.
Mutations produce new characteristics. Genetic drift and geographic isolation also produces changes within a species. Migration of populations into new areas may cause evolution. Evolution can occur through natural selection (mating preferences, predatory killing, etc.). Owls eat the white mice first. Ocean currents brought creatures from South America rather than Central and North America to Galapagos Islands. Birds eating peppered moths is natural selection in action. Growth differences in fossil bears must be due to the fact that they hibernated in different caves. Teeth become smaller with age. Different sub-species of the same bird have different length bills. Flowers, insects, etc., copycat one another’s shape, color, etc. (mimicry). Sexual preferences of animals might make changes within species. Sickle-cell anemia proves that natural selection occurs within mankind.
A Devonian fish probably climbed out of the water and become an amphibian; but, unfortunately, we do not have the missing link when this happened. Transitional fossil forms prove evolution, and we have one: the reptile-bird, Archaeopteryx.
Given enough time, evolution can occur. Rock strata time charts prove long ages. Evolution is occurring now in the Solomon Islands, as the Golden Whistler [bird] makes new subspecies [picture of them indicates they all look just about alike]. Minks change color in winter, and this surely must have been caused by mutations at some time in the past.
Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars. Perhaps it only happened in the past, but perhaps it is happening now. A cloud came together and formed the earth. All the planets have six of the elements, so this is an important proof of something.
Miller and Urey took complicated lab equipment and produced some dead amino acids.
There are many fossil outlines, impressions, casts, tracks, etc. Stone artifacts [arrowheads, etc.] are the most common remains of prehistoric man. The oldest fossils are about 2.7 billion years old. Most fossil animals suddenly appeared about 600 million years ago. Fossilized marine invertebrates. The oldest vertebrates [bony fish], insects, land animals, and plants. The reptiles and dinosaurs. The mammals.
Apes and monkeys. Reconstructed "ape-men." Suggested evolution of man from monkey. Stone tools. Cave paintings. "Evolution" of human societies. Evolutionary theory, although intrinsically separate from morality, is still not bad for society. The "future evolution" of man in regard to pollution control, dwindling resources, overpopulation.
—That summarizes the evidence for evolution in an entire, excellent book dedicated to the subject. Throughout it all, did you find even one clear-cut evidence for evolution?
LISTING THE PROOFS OF EVOLUTION
In concluding this chapter, let us briefly overview the strongest evidences of evolution, as presented in a number of evolution textbooks:
1 - Aristotle taught evolution.
2 - Linnaeus classified plants and animals.
3 - Darwin wrote an influential book.
4 - Morgan studied fruit flies.
5 - Every living thing has chromosomes.
6 - People age as they become older.
7 - All living things have cells.
8 - All birds have feathers.
9 - Woodpeckers punch holes in trees.
10 - Birds breed in different climates.
11 - There are both light and dark moths.
12 - Some species have become extinct.
13 - Mendel discovered inheritance patterns.
14 - Coin tossing exemplifies evolution.
15 - DNA is the key to inheritance.
16 - Variants exist among people.
17 - Changes have taken place within species.
18 - Mutations produce new characteristics.
19 - Migration may cause evolution.
20 - Mating preferences can cause evolution.
21 - Predatory killing can cause evolution.
22 - Owls eat white mice first.
23 - Birds eat peppered moths.
24 - Different bears are different sizes.
25 - Teeth become smaller with age.
26 - Mutations produced sickle-cell anemia.
27 - A fish must have climbed out of water.
28 - Time can produce evolution.
29 - Evolutionary charts prove long ages.
30 - Minks change color in winter.
31 - Stone tools have been found.
32 - Dinosaurs became extinct.
33 - Some earlier peoples lived in caves.
34 - Cave paintings have been found.
Evolutionists might as well claim the wetness of water as proof for evolution.
Source: The Evolution Cruncher