london and german fossils

The reading passage introduces the opinion of Fred Hoyle who believed that the London and German fossils of Archaeopteryx were not authentic and they were faked to support Darwin's theory of evolution. However, the speaker in the lecture casts doubt on the claims made in the article. She states that the fossils were actually genuine. First and foremost, the article assumes that Owen forged the fossils to support the new theory since he was a staunch supporter. The writer further indicates that the fossils were discovered only two years after Darwin published his theory. Nevertheless, the lecturer argues that Owen did not fake the fossils owing to the fact that he was not an advocate for Darwin's model. In addition, Owen himself wrote two papers on these fossils and if they were proved fraudulent, he would be risking his career and credibility. Secondly, the author maintains that the Hoyle was convinced that the fossils were too perfect to be real, especially when compared to other fossils which did not have any evidence for feathers. Moreover, Hoyle held that the lines on the fossils were probably made through impressions in a thin cement layer. The listening, on the other hand, refutes this idea be declaring that Hoyle was n astronomer and he knew nothing about fossil formations. Plus, the remains were unearthed in a smooth limestone, and that's why it yielded flawless fossils. Lastly, the excerpt points out that the two parts of the fossil did not match since one of them was more preserved than the other. Consequently, Hoyle was suspicious that the perfect half was the false one. The lecturer explains that this pattern happens when the creature falls on a hard surface then get covered by limestone. Besides, scientists polished one half to make the details clearer, which may have led to this discrepancy.