What do you think?
Rate this book
Archaeopteryx, the Primordial Bird: A Case of Fossil Forgery
Hardcover
Published January 1, 1986
19 people want to read
About the author
Fred Hoyle
115 books174 followersProfessor Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most distinguished, creative, and controversial scientists of the twentieth century. He was a Fellow of St John’s College (1939-1972, Honorary Fellow 1973-2001), was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1957, held the Plumian Chair of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy (1958-1972), established the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy in Cambridge (now part of the Institute of Astronomy), and (in 1972) received a knighthood for his services to astronomy.
Hoyle was a keen mountain climber, an avid player of chess, a science fiction writer, a populariser of science, and the man who coined the phrase 'The Big Bang'.
Hoyle was a keen mountain climber, an avid player of chess, a science fiction writer, a populariser of science, and the man who coined the phrase 'The Big Bang'.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 24, 2024
THE FAMED ASTRONOMERS CHARGE (IN 1986) THAT THE ARCHAEOPTERYX FOSSILS WERE FRAUDS
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and cosmology; he also coined the term "Big Bang" (as a sarcastic comment, in contrast to his own "Steady-State" theory). Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) is a Sri Lankan-born British mathematician, astronomer, and astrobiologist. He is currently Visiting By-Fellow, Churchill College, Cambridge, England, and Professor and Director of the Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham.
It should first be noted that this very controversial book was published in 1986, and that other specimens of Archaeopteryx have since been found (as well as other bird/dinosaur fossils with feathers); it should also be noted that in Wickramasinghe's book 'Journey With Fred Hoyle: The Search For Cosmic Life'), he ruefully said about this book, "We did not convince our opponents as we had set out to do, and we also lost many friends! The prudence of taking on so powerful an institution like the British Museum must on retrospect be called to question..."
Be that as it may, they wrote in the Preface, "Since the skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are not at all suited to flight---the creature had no proper anchorage for its tail feathers And no breast muscles to speak of wherewith to beat its wings---it challenges credulity to imagine that the flight feathers could be such as would permit the complex aerobatic feats of modern birds. A forger of the feathers, on the other hand, would have had no option but to use modern feathers for his dubious work."
They suggest, "We suspect this forgery to have been perpetrated by someone who drew on a good knowledge of lithographic technique. The scenario went something as follows. A fine cement paste was prepared from ground-up Solnhofen limestone and the paste was smeared lightly on one portion of the split piece of rock. A feather was either carbonized itself or impregnated with a black sticky carbonaceous material. The feather was then positioned ventral side down on the paste, and the other portion of the split rock was placed on top of the feather, with a light but firm pressure applied between the two pieces of stone. After the cement had set the two portions of the rock were separated again with the skill the local quarrymen are said to have possessed. The feather was now removed, leaving an imprint on the thin layer of set paste, and leaving matching carbonaceous material on both of the separated surfaces, but also leaving a tell-tale difference of texture on the surfaces... such a forgery would not have been unduly difficult." (Pg. 41-43)
They proclaim, "by this stage we had accumulated quite a number of sensitive points which could be subjected to explicitly-directed examination in the other untouched areas. As it eventually turned out, it was evidence from these other areas which gave proofs of forgery that should be sufficient to convince anybody who is not in the unfortunate condition of being professionally inconvincible." (Pg. 49)
They propose, "Karl Häberlein is said to have behaved in an odd manner over the 1861 specimen. While permitting visiting paleontologists to have a general view of the fossil, he would not permit them to study it in detail, or to make sketches of it. This would accord with his being aware of the several defects in the forgery of which the collapse of the paste off the counterslab must have weighed heavily on his mind... There is no doubt that Häberlein would not have got away with it but for the unique moment immediately following the publication of `The Origin of Species' at which the forgery was perpetrated." (Pg. 63-65)
They charge, "No affair of the magnitude we suspect we have touched on in this book could be entirely explained as a bit of trickery by a forger, or by a cooperative of forgers, and then by the later amour proper of the authorities in not wanting to admit that they had been deceived. Every museum has probably made a costly error at some time in the distant past, but without the mistake living on to haunt subsequent generations. A bigger circuit had surely to be involved somewhere.
"One possible bigger circuit is the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection... the supporters of that theory... appear to have profited most from a belief in the authenticity of Archaeopteryx. Moreover, supporters of the Darwinian theory have proved down the years to be just as doctrinaire and intolerant as was the theological establishment they replaced, so it is not hard to convince oneself that such zealots would go to great lengths to prevent the fraudulent origin of Archaeopteryx from being exposed." (Pg. 101-103) They (surprisingly) conclude, "instead of Archaeopteryx turning out to be a Darwinian fraud, it was just the opposite. Archaeopteryx was a creationist fraud." (Pg. 119-120)
Well, you get the idea. Many of their points might have been convincing in the late 19th century, or even the early 20th, but as it is, one is simply left scratching one's head and wondering, "Why in the world did Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go in this direction?"
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was an English astronomer noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and cosmology; he also coined the term "Big Bang" (as a sarcastic comment, in contrast to his own "Steady-State" theory). Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) is a Sri Lankan-born British mathematician, astronomer, and astrobiologist. He is currently Visiting By-Fellow, Churchill College, Cambridge, England, and Professor and Director of the Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham.
It should first be noted that this very controversial book was published in 1986, and that other specimens of Archaeopteryx have since been found (as well as other bird/dinosaur fossils with feathers); it should also be noted that in Wickramasinghe's book 'Journey With Fred Hoyle: The Search For Cosmic Life'), he ruefully said about this book, "We did not convince our opponents as we had set out to do, and we also lost many friends! The prudence of taking on so powerful an institution like the British Museum must on retrospect be called to question..."
Be that as it may, they wrote in the Preface, "Since the skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are not at all suited to flight---the creature had no proper anchorage for its tail feathers And no breast muscles to speak of wherewith to beat its wings---it challenges credulity to imagine that the flight feathers could be such as would permit the complex aerobatic feats of modern birds. A forger of the feathers, on the other hand, would have had no option but to use modern feathers for his dubious work."
They suggest, "We suspect this forgery to have been perpetrated by someone who drew on a good knowledge of lithographic technique. The scenario went something as follows. A fine cement paste was prepared from ground-up Solnhofen limestone and the paste was smeared lightly on one portion of the split piece of rock. A feather was either carbonized itself or impregnated with a black sticky carbonaceous material. The feather was then positioned ventral side down on the paste, and the other portion of the split rock was placed on top of the feather, with a light but firm pressure applied between the two pieces of stone. After the cement had set the two portions of the rock were separated again with the skill the local quarrymen are said to have possessed. The feather was now removed, leaving an imprint on the thin layer of set paste, and leaving matching carbonaceous material on both of the separated surfaces, but also leaving a tell-tale difference of texture on the surfaces... such a forgery would not have been unduly difficult." (Pg. 41-43)
They proclaim, "by this stage we had accumulated quite a number of sensitive points which could be subjected to explicitly-directed examination in the other untouched areas. As it eventually turned out, it was evidence from these other areas which gave proofs of forgery that should be sufficient to convince anybody who is not in the unfortunate condition of being professionally inconvincible." (Pg. 49)
They propose, "Karl Häberlein is said to have behaved in an odd manner over the 1861 specimen. While permitting visiting paleontologists to have a general view of the fossil, he would not permit them to study it in detail, or to make sketches of it. This would accord with his being aware of the several defects in the forgery of which the collapse of the paste off the counterslab must have weighed heavily on his mind... There is no doubt that Häberlein would not have got away with it but for the unique moment immediately following the publication of `The Origin of Species' at which the forgery was perpetrated." (Pg. 63-65)
They charge, "No affair of the magnitude we suspect we have touched on in this book could be entirely explained as a bit of trickery by a forger, or by a cooperative of forgers, and then by the later amour proper of the authorities in not wanting to admit that they had been deceived. Every museum has probably made a costly error at some time in the distant past, but without the mistake living on to haunt subsequent generations. A bigger circuit had surely to be involved somewhere.
"One possible bigger circuit is the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection... the supporters of that theory... appear to have profited most from a belief in the authenticity of Archaeopteryx. Moreover, supporters of the Darwinian theory have proved down the years to be just as doctrinaire and intolerant as was the theological establishment they replaced, so it is not hard to convince oneself that such zealots would go to great lengths to prevent the fraudulent origin of Archaeopteryx from being exposed." (Pg. 101-103) They (surprisingly) conclude, "instead of Archaeopteryx turning out to be a Darwinian fraud, it was just the opposite. Archaeopteryx was a creationist fraud." (Pg. 119-120)
Well, you get the idea. Many of their points might have been convincing in the late 19th century, or even the early 20th, but as it is, one is simply left scratching one's head and wondering, "Why in the world did Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go in this direction?"
January 26, 2015
The story of Archaeopteryx,an innocent little dinosaur come back 160 million years later to haunt the world.
Not a book for Darwin fans.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews