Photo credit: ideonexus
Every once in a while I go on Conservapedia looking for something completely ridiculous to write about. For example, I took issue with them for hinting that the current Canadian flag was adopted to appease commies and separatists.
Today I want to have some fun with their article about Archaeopteryx. The article is actually pretty short, because even a fine establishment like Conservapedia seems to have trouble coming up with a plausible way to reject the obvious reality that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. They have two reasons why Archaeopteryx isn’t what scientists say it is:
1. Fred Hoyle Says it’s Fake
Fred Hoyle, as Conservapedia said, is a British scientists, and he has done pretty impressive work in his career. He did also come out and state that he thought Archaeopteryx was a fraud. What Conservapedia does not tell you is that Fred Hoyle is an astronomer. So is it safe for us to assume that Paleontologists are more qualified to study fossils than Astronomers? Not according to Conservapedia.
2. Archaeopteryx is not a Transitional Fossil
The argument used here is extremely old and extremely tired. It claims that Archaeopteryx was a fully formed bird, and not a transitional form at all. The citations used to back up these claims are extremely illustrative. The first one links to the Creationist website Answers in Genesis, which is well known to reject Evolution in the face of any and all evidence. The second is from a Creationist book by Carl Wieland, the Managing Director of Creation Ministeries International. Wieland is a medical doctor and a surgeon, not a Paleontologist.
Are either of these sources unbiased? No. Are they scientific? No.
So there you have it. Archaeopteryx according to Conservapedia. Nothing new, nothing scientific. Here is an article proving (yet again) that the fraud claims are ridiculous.