Archaeoraptor hoax update—National Geographic recants!
2 March 2000
In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article,
National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu
Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing.
Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000
issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu
Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing,
reads:
‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection
and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101],
I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of
the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different
from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus.
Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed
of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ 1
National Geographic followed the letter from Xu with this statement:
‘Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor.
As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem
to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination
of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies
in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are
completed.’ 2
As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question
the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed
to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing
problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist
Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost
every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction
to make it look prettier.’ 3
The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the
local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out
that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult
to spot.’ 4
The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg
was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’
Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together.
‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’
5
Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird
theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see
the X-rays.’ 6 Joints and gaps
in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:
‘The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an
art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has
gotten riddled with fakery.’ 7
Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx,
have been used as ‘proof’ of evolution and thus ‘disproof’
of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We must remember that God’s Word
never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the
fanciful, ever-changing findings of men.
References
- Xu Xing, Response to ‘Feathers for T. rex?’
National Geographic 197(3), March 2000, Forum Section
(pages unnumbered). Return to text.
- Response to Xu Xing, National Geographic 197(3),
March 2000, Forum Section (pages unnumbered). Return to text.
- Jeff Hecht, ‘F is for fake’, New Scientist
165(2226):12, Feb. 19, 2000. Return to text.
- Ibid. Return to text.
- Ibid. Return to text.
- Ibid. Return to text.
- Ibid. Return to text.
|
