I'm placing here a small piece of ancient history, from July of 1996. This is an account of my interactions with a particularly silly and peculiar anti-evolutionist, Ed Conrad. At that time, I was an assistant professor in the biology department at Temple University, in Philadelphia, PA. Ed Conrad was a strange fellow, a journalist in a small town in Pennsylvania, who was stridently insisting on the talk.origins newsgroup that 1) evolution was false, 2) that modern humans had existed at the time that the Carboniferous coal deposits were forming, 3) that there had been a Velikovskian catastrophe, and 4) that he had proof in the form of human fossils that he had been collecting from old coal mines in central Pennsylvania. He is not your typical reactionary christian creationist, but an odd breed spawned by weird television pseudoscience, paranoid conspiracy theories, von Daniken and Velikovsky, and a deep hatred of scientific authorities.

Ed was being dealt with in an exemplary fashion by a geologist, Andrew MacRae, but since I worked in the same state as Ed, I offered to let him use my microscope to do some comparative examination of the fine structure of his 'fossils'. He spent a long afternoon puttering about with my equipment, and I thought he was beginning to see the light -- his specimens looked nothing like any of the biological or fossil material I had on hand, and he was clearly frustrated that reality was not reflecting his delusions at all well. As you'll see below, though, he bounced back just fine after he left, coming up with a whole collection of rationalizations after the fact.

Anyway, here is the brief account I put up on the web in 1996:

A comparison of human bone, fossilized dinosaur bone, and Ed Conrad's putative Carboniferous bone

Ed Conrad has been arguing that he has found examples of fossilized human bones from the Carboniferous era. He has been trying to get proof positive of his assertion, the latest example being the tests performed by Andrew MacRae at the University of Calgary. Unfortunately, Ed was not pleased with the results of those tests, and voiced a number of complaints, one being that MacRae had made no direct comparison of the putative bone specimen with real human bone.

I offered Ed the opportunity to use my microscopy equipment to correct this supposed flaw in the testing. He and his friend Joe stopped by this weekend, the 13^th of July, to compare the specimen prepared by MacRae, a section of dinosaur bone that MacRae was nice enough to give to Ed, and a section of human long bone that we use in histology labs here in the biology department. We also looked at scrapings from both a piece of human bone and the specimen in question; unfortunately, we did not get images of those samples.

All three images were viewed on a Nikon Optiphot, with a 10x/NA 0.30 plan apochromatic objective (that simply means that the objective was corrected for both spherical and chromatic aberration, and had reasonably good resolution for a low power dry lens). The images were captured with a VideoScope CCD-200E camera, and digitized with a Perceptics PixelPipeline digitizer and a Mac Quadra 800, using custom software I've written. The final resolution of these images is about 1 micrometer/pixel. A 100 micrometer scale bar is also present in each image. For those of you who care about final magnification, the reduced images on this page correspond to very roughly 115x, if you are using a 75dpi monitor; clicking on the images will open up the original images at about 350x.

These images were photographed as Ed Conrad demanded in a posting to talk.origins a while back. Each was taken one after another with none of the parameters of the optics changed in any way, except to focus directly on the specimen.

Human bone thin section

Dinosaur bone thin section

Thin section of Ed Conrad's specimen (EC96-001)

Note added after his visit

Shortly I made those observations public, Ed Conrad made quite a few comments in reply. I posted the following comment on talk.origins:

Ed Conrad visited my lab today to take a look at his specimen and a few others on my video microscope. The end result, I think, is that Ed was willing to concede that there are some major difficulties in interpreting his specimen as bone, but he is not going to give up yet.

I must say that this was a very cordial visit. In person, Ed does not seem as wild-eyed and irrational as some of his posts imply -- further evidence that the Net strips away the mannered veneer we need to maintain a civil discourse! My general impression is that he is simply a stubborn, determined individual who will not give up in his pursuits. This is probably a very good quality in a journalist, but not quite so admirable in scientific inquiry, in which half the struggle is in admitting failure when you reach a dead end.

We did a number of things. We had 3 sectioned specimens: a piece of human bone from our teaching labs, a dinosaur bone section from Andrew MacRae, and the sectioned specimen of putative bone, collected by Conrad and sliced by MacRae. Ed also brought several of his specimens and a piece of human bone, from which he took some scrapings.

We examined all of these specimens on my Nikon video microscope, an Olympus stereomicroscope, and Ed's own microscope, which he had brought along. Ed's microscope was useful for point of comparison and so that I could finally see what he has been using all this time. It's an old portable scope with 3 objectives (10x, 30x, and 50x) and a 10-15x zoom ocular. The lenses are completely uncorrected--I saw the circular structures he has reported, and can say that they are optical artifacts, diffraction patterns and severe chromatic aberrations. You _can_ see Haversian canals in thin sections of bone with this scope, but they are pretty murky.

You can also see the canals quite clearly on the Olympus stereomicroscope, which has only a 0.9-4x zoom objective. It really does not take much magnification to see these things!

The real test was the examination of the specimens on the Nikon. Again, magnification proved to be non- critical: the Haversian structure in human bone was easily visible with a 4x or 10x objective, although we did look briefly with a 16x objective. We didn't even consider using my 40x or 60x lenses, which would have been serious overkill. Most of the observations were made with a 10x/0.3NA objective, and a setting of 0.8x on the optizoom. The final resolution of our digitized images was about 1.0 micrometers/pixel, so the field of view was roughly half a millimeter.

The conclusions: Scrapings from human bone or from Ed's specimen looked essentially identical. This is not to imply that Ed's specimen was bone, however; no Haversian structure was visible, and basically what we were viewing was granular, rough-edged chunks of mineral, whether bone or stone was irrelevant.

The sections of human and fossilized dinosaur bone looked nearly identical in dimension, although I will concede that the Haversian structures were slightly larger in this sample of dinosaur bone. The differences were minor, however. The structures were clear and unambiguous at all levels of magnification used.

No comparable image of Ed's specimen could be acquired. The structures were very granular, with an irregular, variable density. There were clear spots scattered throughout the specimen that might have the approximate dimensions of the central canals in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent with bone. There was also no evidence that these spaces had any longitudinal continuity, so I'm inclined to accept MacRae's interpretation that these are simply transparent grains of quartz.

I've posted 3 images to <http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/bone.html>. These were taken according to Ed's previous request: each was taken one after the other with the optics left unchanged, except to adjust the focus. One is human bone, the second is dinosaur fossil bone, and the last is MacRae's section of Ed's specimen. Take a look and make your own judgement.

Ed's parting words were that he admits to some difficulties, but he is not giving up. I'm sure he will post his own interpretations soon enough. I will say that he was a congenial guest, and that if he thinks of any other tests he would like to make on my equipment, he is welcome to stop by again and give it another try.

Ed made numerous replies to that. His current statement is on the web, and here's one of the longer examples posted on talk.origins:

You correctly stated that I experienced "major difficulties" seeing the Haversian systems in the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared from the specimen I had sent him.

>"My general impression is that he (Ed Conrad) is
>simply a stubborn, determined individual who will not
>give up in his pursuits," you concluded in your posting.
>"This is probably a very good quality in a journalist,
>but not quite so admirable in scientific inquiry,
>in which half the struggle is in admitting failure
>when you reach a dead end."

It is far from a dead end, however, when all of the cards -- concerning my visit -- are placed on the table.

Paul, you very importantly pointed out -- and I give you credit for doing so -- that, while Haversian systems could not be seen in the thin section of my specimen, they likewise COULD NOT BE SEEN in the scrapings of bone that I had removed from the human pelvis that I had taken along.

Your exact words:

> " Scrapings from human bone or from Ed's
> specimen looked essentially identical. This is not to
> imply that Ed's specimen was bone, however; no
> Haversian structure was visible . . . "

You also made another statement which is rather interesting:

> "No comparable image of (Haversian systems in) Ed's
> specimen could be acquired. The structures were very
> granular, with an irregular, variable density. There were
> clear spots scattered throughout the specimen that might
> have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "

What you failed to point out, however, is that -- same as with the microscopic view of the thin section of my specimen -- none of the surrounding structure of the Haversian systems could be seen in the scrapings removed from the pelvis as well.

In both cases, miniscule pin-like holes were visible throughout both specimens.

In contrast, using the same microscope and at the same magnification, the Haversian systems were clearly visible in a tiny piece of bone on a slide YOU had made available for comparsion.

When I arrived at your lab, Paul, you removed this particular slide from a boxful of slides -- numbering close to a hundred. The slides were neatly stacked in a case that you explained was used for classroom study of biology at the university.

Obviously, all of the slides in the case had been prepared in the manufacturer's laboratory under the most ideal conditions.

In any event, I agreed to use the slide you made available for microscopic comparison with the ground section of my specimen prepared by Andrew MacRae.

In your slide -- the classroom slide -- the Haversian systems were crystal clear, including just about all of the surrounding structure.

At the very same magnification and under the same lighting conditions, all I was seeing in my specimen was a collection of helter-skelter "pinholes."

I then examined the scrapings from the pelvis and -- very, very strangely -- I saw almost the exact same view I had seen in my specimen: the "pinholes."

Only during the drive home did the friend who accompanied me casually remark that you had informed him -- while I was using the men's room -- that the visibility of the Haversian systems could differ not only in different specimens of bone but also in the specific locality of a particular bone.

Since your statement aroused my curiosity, I returned home and opened the World Book Encyclopedia to learn something very interesting about the Haversian canals. It stated: "Haversian canals are tiny channels within COMPACT BONE tissue, the hard, outer layers of bone . . . A canal and its bone tissue are called an osteon or Haversian system. Osteons are the basic structure that make up compact bone."

It further explained that there also is CANCELLOUS BONE which is located farther from the hard, outer layers of bone -- yet no mention was made of the Haversian systems existing in cancellous, or spongy, bone. (If they do exist, it must be somewhat difficult to see them).

Now let's get back to the "classroom" slide that you, Paul, had made available for the purpose of comparison.

I thought it very, very strange that, when I finally informed you by E-mail that I'd be paying a visit to Temple the next day, you promplty responded by transmitting this messagel:

"I just thought I'd let you know that I have obtained a nice thin section of human bone. I've checked it out with my equipment and it is very easy to image Haversian canals with several of my objectives . . . so there should be no problem seeing them, if present, in your specimen.

My first reaction was WHY you would even send me such a message since I assumed human bone was human bone. Additionally, you obviously knew I'd be bringing human cadaver bone with me for microscopic comparison with the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.

It's obvious now why you selected that particular slide. No matter what we would see in the MacRae thin section, there would be no comparison. Your "classroom" slide was that majestic, revealing not only the Haversian canals but the structure surrounding the canals (part of each Haversian system).

Meanwhile, about the only thing interesting in my thin section AND THE SCRAPINGS FROM THE HUMAN PELVIS were those "pinholes" of light.

Paul, I'm glad that you at least were man enough to admit:

> "There were clear spots scattered throughout the specimen
> that might have the approximate dimensions of the central canals
> in bone, but none of the surrounding structure was consistent
> with bone. . . "

It comes as no surprise to me that "none of the surrounding structure (of my specimen) was consistent with bone" because, based on research conducted on petrified bone, it has been established that the process of petrification removes telltale evidence of the previous existence of lamellae, lacunae, canaliculi, etc. -- the structure surrounding the Haversian canals.

However, it is a scientific fact that the petrification process cannot remove or displace the Haversian canals because, being "tunnels'' originally used as a delivery system for oxygen and food to living bone, there was nothing there to replace.

Meanwhile, it is important to point out that NONE of the surrounding structure consistent with bone was visible in the scrapings removed from the human pelvis under the 140X magnification.

The obvious answer is that the slide you had taken from the case of slides for classroom study was prepared from an excellent piece of COMPACT BONE.

Meanwhile, I regret that I did not randomly examine ANY of the other slides in your case. I'm sure I would've found that FEW of the other slides would've presented such a magnificent view of the Haversian systems.

I would also venture to say that some of the slides in your case will reveal a similiar view -- a collection of helter-skelter "pinpoints'' -- as seen in the scrapings removed from the human pelvis and in the thin section of my specimen prepared by Andrew MacRae.

That's because those "pinholes" of light are, in fact, the Haverisan canals.

> To see what I mean, see the photos that Ted Holden
> has just posted on his Home Page:
> http://access.digex.com/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm

I also would like to point out that, while examining the slide that you had made available from the case, there was no indication whatsoever that it indeed was human bone; what particular bone it was taken from, nor any information as to the approximate location of the area of the bone from where the fragment was removed .

I also regret I did not obtain the name and address of the company which had prepared the box of slides -- definitely an oversight on my part. Its name did not appear on the slide itself nor did I notice it on the box.

This information is pertinent because I could then acquire more information about the box of slides and especially about No. 27 -- if my memory is correct -- which is what you had used for the comparisons.

I'd like to establish contact with the preparer of that particular slide to learn why the Haversian systems are so clearly visible yet, while using the same magnification and the same microscope, they are not visible in the scaping removed from the HUMAN pelvis.

In other words, if two pieces of human bone are being examined microscopically, why should the Haversian systems be so clearly visible in one and not visible whatsoever in the other (unless, as I learned in the World Book Encyclopaedia, it has to be compact bone and have come from a specific location).

I am NOT asking for an answer to the discrepancy between the classroom slide and the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared -- only in the discrepancy between two specimens of human bone.

Nevertheless, a distinct possibility exists that , if the question about the difference in visibility of the two different specimens of human bone is answered, it should answer the question about the thin section that Andrew MacRae had prepared.

I would like to state, further, that my friend politely asked if we could keep the "classroom" slide that you had been using -- since you had a whole caseful. But you declined.

May I add that I really wanted to spend much more time in your lab but failed to do so for a very good reason. My friend began bugging me to leave, claiming he hadn't eaten all day and was so hungry that he had a headache.

And I will frankly admit that he told me spending any more time at your microscopes was rather senseless because he seemed convinced that my specimen wasn't even in the same ballpark with yours.

When I reminded him that the scrapings from the human pelvis ALSO failed to show any indication of Haversian systems, he could offer no reasonable explanation -- and, at the time, neither could I.

When what transpired in your laboratory is placed in proper perspective, Paul, I can assure you that your declaration that I finally have reached a DEAD END is sheer nonsense.

I need not remind you that, on different occasions over these past 15 years, various members of your scientific community, including the biggest names at the most prestigious institutions and universities, also felt sure the ballgame was over after trying to pull the wool over my eyes -- and that I had no alternative but to throw in the towel.

They were confident that their involvement in deceipt, deception, collusion and conspiracy had staved off what unquestionably ranks as the most serious threat to Darwin's erroneous theory of evolution.

No wonder such effort has been made to stop me in my tracks, either by hook or by crook. Those strange-looking "rocks" I keep finding in Carboniferous strata in Pennsylvania's anthracite region CANNOT POSSIBLY be confirmed as petrified bone by the scientific community because, if they were, it would shake the very foundation of established science.

"Dead ends" haven't bothered me in the past except to discourage me temporarily. Fortunately, I always manage to bounce back and eventually find that another door opens which enables me to make even further progress, an inch at a time.

Your declaration that I have reached a dead end -- and, moreso, your suggestion that I be man enough to admit it -- is totally out of line.

My specimens ARE petrified bone and some ARE human! You know it! Andrew MacRae knows it! And many, many others high up in the scientific establishment know it as well.

Ed's comments on usenet prompted me to make the following additions to my initial web page on the subject. Again, these are from late July of 1996.

The complicated structure of bone Bone is a beautiful substance with an intricate structure. To simplify quite a bit, the basic unit is the Haversian system, which is a hollow, laminated rod of collagen and calcium phosphate; the hollow core is a nutrient channel, the Haversian canal. Within the shaft of a long bone, many of these Haversian systems are bundled together in parallel, forming a kind of bone called compact bone, which is optimized to handle compressive and bending forces. Near the ends of the bones, where the stresses become more complex, the Haversian systems splay out and branch to form a meshwork of cancellous, or spongy bone. If you cut a cross-section through a region of compact bone, you will see rings of Haversian systems, each with a hole, the canal, in the center. Cutting through the region of cancellous bone produces a more complex section, because the systems have many different orientations. Anatomy of the tibia Ed Conrad claims that EC96-001 is a portion of the shaft of a human tibia. This is a diagram of a tibia, and as can be seen it is not a simple rod-like bone, but has a very stereotyped and detailed anatomy. A fossil is not required to show all the crisp detail of a fresh bone (although many do show an impressively complete state of preservation!), but you would expect some evidence of these anatomical characters to be found somewhere in his large collection. I count 10 specific, labeled bumps and ridges and surfaces on this one diagram of a tibia. If Ed showed us one specimen with just 3 or 4 of these elements clearly recognizable, I wouldn't hesitate to call it a tibia. Look at EC96-001, his premier exemplar of a "fossilized human tibia": you won't find a single one of these features present. Why do all of his fossilized long bones so conveniently lack their ends? (These images were scanned from a textbook, Basic Medical Anatomy, by Alexander Spence (Benjamin/Cummings 1990). Any anatomy or histology text can give you this information with greater or lesser detail, and it has been readily available to the public since at least the 18th century.)

Other specimens from Ed Conrad During his visit to Temple University, Ed Conrad also showed me some of his other presumptive "fossils of Carboniferous humans". Unfortunately, I did not take any pictures of these specimens, since our very specific goal was to examine microscopic thin sections. Some of these specimens can be seen on Ed Conrad's web page, however. Here I will simply have to describe what I saw. A fragment of the shaft of a human tibia. This is specimen EC96-001, which is much more thoroughly described on Andrew MacRae's page. Basically, this is a rough, tapered cylinder with broken ends. There are no diagnostic anatomical features present on it, but from the size I would have guessed it might have been a portion of the shaft of a femur, although it seemed a little too robust even for that. Conrad has claimed, however, that the late Dr. Krogman (a pathologist, I believe) identified this specimen as part of a human tibia. How the late Dr. Krogman could have made this determination is unclear; however, since I have only handled 10 or 15 human tibias in my life, I'll concede that maybe he knew something I don't. I think, however, that Ed Conrad must be much more specific in explaining how this featureless cylinder could be so decisively determined to be a specific bone. A human cranium. This was a very interesting piece of rock. It is roughly bowl-shaped, about the size of a human cranium, and Ed does have a photograph of it on his web page. However, it was also an inch or two thick, asymmetrical, and there were odd, thick infoldings in the interior. Ed claims that most of the thickness is due to mineral accumulations, and the bone itself is completely buried under thick layers of foreign mineral. Again, all the anatomically significant diagnostic features are missing, in this case because they are imbedded in rock rather than having broken off. A fragment of a human jaw. This was the least interesting of Ed's specimens. He purports that it is a piece of jaw, the right-angled corner in back. It has been broken so the condyle is missing, as well as the tooth-bearing anterior part. It is far too large and thick to be human. All it really looks like is a flattened rock with a squared off corner. Ed has several examples of these kinds of unimposing specimens on his web page. The anterior end of a human jaw, with two "teeth" and a fossilized tongue-tip. This was a complex piece. It was shaped like a broad "U", and on "top" were a couple of blob-like lumps. Ed claimed this was the broken off chin of an antediluvian human. Again, however, it was far too large and thick to be human. The two "teeth" were squat, marshmallow shaped blobs assymetrically placed on a thick ridge along the back of the "jaw"; if these were teeth, then antediluvian man not only had very poor dental care, but he also had a pair of gigantic molars where his incisors ought to be. There was a third blob that was smoother and had been fractured at the "back"...according to Ed, this was a piece of fossilized tongue-tip. Yeah, right. A fossilized gall bladder. Finally, Ed showed me a smooth, tear-drop shaped stone about the size of the ball of my thumb, which had a tapered stem that ended in a break. He had me try to guess what it was, and I will admit to being totally stumped. Finally, the secret was revealed -- it was a human gall bladder. As definitive proof, he had had it X-rayed, and there is a round discontinuity present inside this fossil: a gall stone. My general opinion is that all of these pieces have shapes that are vaguely suggestive of bones or other organs, and anyone with any imagination at all can see these anatomical features in the rocks, in the same way that you can find similar features in cloud formations. Some, like his "jaw with teeth and tongue-tip", also require a blind ignorance of anatomy. All have only a coincidental correspondence with real organs. In every case, the details that would be required to make a convincing correspondence are either missing or obscured in mineral encrustations. Ed has also put no rational thought into giving us a convincing mechanism for the odd pattern of fossilization we are seeing: the specimens have experienced such severe trauma that they are all broken, yet isolated gall bladders could somehow be preserved. The shattered pieces have an odd distribution, too. The ends of all the long bones are broken off and lost, the jaws are missing their joints and teeth, and certain fragments are selectively absent, such as teeth and vertebrae. It is very suspicious that the only specimens found are those with the simplest possible geometry, which leave open the possibility of ambiguous interpretation.

The upshot of Ed's comments is that he disavows these observations, and disagrees strongly with the conclusion implied by these and Andrew MacRae's results, that his specimens are not fossilized bone. Here are Ed's chief arguments, as I interpret them:

Bone structure varies with the type of bone and position within the bone

Ed was very surprised to learn that bone does not have a uniform structure, although I personally mentioned this to him and it is common knowledge among biologists and informed laymen. Unfortunately, Ed has seized upon this simple fact to argue that 1) his specimen does look like bone, just not the kind of compact bone present on my slide, and 2) I intentionally and misleadingly selected a kind of bone that would fool him.
Although I was supposedly trying to mislead him, I was also the one who explained these basic facts of bone histology to him. The difference in structure between cancellous and compact bone is also irrelevant in this case. Ed claims that EC96-001 is a piece of the shaft of a human tibia, which also happens to be a great place to find good examples of compact bone, like the one I showed him. The claim that I tricked him with an inappropriate piece of compact bone is a red herring...I would have had to use a piece of cancellous bone if I wanted to fool him with a specimen that looked radically different from a tibial fragment.

EC96-001 is petrified, and therefore most of the structure has been destroyed

According to Ed, the irregular bright spots in the image of EC96-001 above are the remnants of the Haversian canals, and the structure of the osteons has been lost by replacement. I'm not qualified to discuss the appearance of petrified fossils, so I'll leave it to a geologist to comment on this specific problem. However, if this is the case, the structure has been so thoroughly demolished that there is no remaining histological evidence that this was ever a bone. The bright spots retain none of the features of a Haversian canal, aside from a poor and probably coincidental similarity in distribution. Ed's claim that the structure has been destroyed by petrification is simply an admission that the histological evidence that this is bone is not present.

Although the thin sections look different, scrapings of human bone look similar to scrapings from his specimens, therefore his specimens are bone

It is very unfortunate that we did not take any images of some of his scrapings. To a point, he is correct: if you crudely scrape off thick chunks of bone with a pocketknife, and compare them to equivalently prepared chunks of his specimen, they do look very roughly similar. However, this proves absolutely nothing except that poor preparations produce uninterpretable results. If we ran a cat and a dog through a meat grinder, we would end up with two nearly identical piles of meat; however, that does not demonstrate that a cat is a dog.

I must emphasize that the above statements are my interpretation of Ed Conrad's most recent excuses. If he provides an analysis that is more satisfactory to him on his web site I will add a link to it here.

My conclusions are very different from Ed's. I claim that there is no evidence at all that any of his specimens are fossilized bone. I have two simple arguments:

None of the diagnostic anatomical features of human bone are present in any of the specimens Ed Conrad has shown.

In other words, these pieces of rock only look like bone to a nåive and untrained eye. It is very convenient that none of the specimens retain any of the specific features that would allow us to precisely identify them; they are all simple geometric shapes, a cylinder or a bowl or a flattened, bent rod, with all of the important articulating surfaces obligingly broken off. Ed claims to have 80000 specimens. Isn't it a little surprising that none of them display any of the condyles, protuberances, or muscle insertions that you would expect in a fossil bone assemblage? He reasonably argues that they have been shattered and distorted in the process of petrification, but even so it should be possible to find a nearly complete bone that had broken into many pieces, and reconstruct it, especially since he claims this remarkable fossil bed contains even fossilized soft tissues. Compare the picture of EC96-001 (claimed to be the shaft of a tibia by Ed Conrad) on MacRae's web page with a diagram of a human tibia. Where is the specimen with any of the unequivocal anatomical elements of a tibia in Ed's huge collection?
There is another curious omission in the Conrad collection: where are the teeth? Teeth are the hardest, densest part of the body, and among the most likely to be fossilized. They are also complex in shape, unlikely to be mistaken for other geological features, and very useful in identifying the species. Ed has found jaws (with all the tooth-bearing surfaces broken off), even a gall bladder, but no unambiguous teeth (although he does claim one improbable instance).

None of the histological features of bone are present in any of the specimens that have been examined.

EC96-001 is a perfect example: a superficial resemblance to a piece of long bone falls apart under careful scrutiny. There are no Haversian systems visible in this specimen, despite Ed's fervent wishes. Most of his specimens are fragmentary and lack detail, so they require some kind of microstructural confirmation that they are indeed bone. In the observations described here we looked for evidence of Haversian systems in one of his specimens: it completely and unquestionably failed to meet any reasonable histological standard for bone.

Conclusion

Ed Conrad has presented no compelling anatomical or histological evidence that any of his specimens are fossilized bone of any kind. The recent scientific assessments of his specimens have all suggested that they are concretions, nothing more. Additionally, Ed Conrad has, in his posts to talk.origins, presented himself as a self-taught expert in anatomy, histology, and microscopy. However, in every case in which his claims have been subjected to any kind of scrutiny, he has been found to be inexcusably ignorant of even the most elementary concepts of those fields. He is an enthusiastic amateur who has a flawed and poorly defined image of the scientific process, and specifically, of the human fossil record. He has been seeking out odd-shaped rocks that fit his delusions for the past 15 years, and is now trying to find some sliver of confirmation from the rest of us, so far with little success.

Where is Ed Conrad now?

Ed Conrad is a sad case.

He was dealt with relatively civilly initially (amazingly politely for a usenet newsgroup, but his efforts with Ed were what won Andrew MacRae a reputation for saintly patience), and his claims were thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by multiple persons, who made direct, hands-on examinations of his specimens. Nobody has found his claims credible. His elaborate house of cards was demolished in 1996, the table it was standing on was smashed to flinders, the floor was ripped up, the ground below it plowed and sown with salt. The whole thing was silly to begin with, but several people treated him seriously enough to devastate his claim with the investigative equivalent of a nuke.

And Ed is still going strong in 2003.

He's still keeping his website updated. He regularly spams the newsgroups with the same old posts he made years ago. He continues to make bizarre 'discoveries' in the anthracite beds (here for instance, he claims to have found a fossilized fetus -- the pictures, of course, look nothing like any fetus I've ever seen). He dumps accusations of fraud and conspiracy constantly, and occasionally breaks into verse:

If the pseudos say a prayer at Thanksgiving
I can imagine theyll be grateful they're living
Not enclosed in a cell
With stripes that fit well
As conspirators in the fraud that they're singing.

He still rants about Andrew MacRae and me, despite the fact that neither of us have paid any attention to him in quite some time. While looking him up for this article, I see that he has made overwrought accusations that I have been perpetrating "a campaign of deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy against mankind", for instance.

A sad, sad case. Conrad is a harmless kook, but it is unfortunate to see such a vivid example of imperturbable irrationality.