ARCHAEOPTERYX Part 1

Are the features of the archaeopteryx so overwhelmingly and/or

convincingly reptilian as to lead necessarily to the conclusion it

is a transition between the bird and the reptile? And if the bone

structure was very similar would the natural conclusion still be

that the archaeopteryx is a transition?

"The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong" Francis Hitching

1982 pp34-36

Fortuitously for Darwin and his theory, it seemed,

Archaeopteryx was discovered in limestone rocks in Bavaria in 1860

less than two years after The Origin of Species was published.

First, the outline of a feather was seen, giving rise to its name,

which means simply 'ancient bird'. A year later, in a nearby

quarry, an almost complete skeleton was found, its wings

outstretched, with a clear imprint of feathers on them.

Its importance, then and now, was that Archaeopteryx appeared

in the same strata as dinosaur fossils, and appeared at first sight

almost as much a reptile as a bird-'a providentially timed

confirmation of Darwin's proposition that one group of animals

developed into another by way of intermediate forms', it was

recently suggested. Biologists as a whole regard it as

authoritative evidence of Darwinian evolution at work. 'It proved

beyond any argument' that there existed an animal with both

reptilian and bird features, according to one account 'even today,

there is no more convincing example' of a transitionary link, says

another.

But is the case for Archaeopteryx quite so unambiguous as these

claims make out? Apparently not. Everyone of its supposed

reptilian features can be found in various species of undoubted

birds.

1. "It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's on which feathers

grew." While it is generally true that reptiles have tails, and

birds appear not to, the detailed position is more complex. In

embryo, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than

Archaeopteryx does, which later fuse to become an upstanding

pygostyle. The bone and feather arrangement on a present day swan

shows striking similarities to Archaeopteryx. According to one

authority, there is no difference in principle between the ancient

and modern forms: 'the difference lies only in the fact that the

caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a

reptile.'

2. "It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs."

But so do some modern birds, such as the hoatzin in South America

and the touraco in Africa. The ostrich of today, which also has

three claws on its wings, has been suggested by some experts to have

more reptilian features than the Archaeopteryx- but nobody, of

course, considers the ostrich to be a transitional form.

3. "It had bony jaws lined with teeth." Modern birds do not

have teeth. But many ancient birds did, particularly those in the

Mesozoic, and there is no suggestion that these are intermediates.

It is just as convincing to argue that archaeopteryx was an early

bird with teeth.

4. "It had a shallow breastbone that would have given it a

feeble wing beat and poor flight." Modern woodcreepers such as the

hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not

disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of

course, many species of bird, now and in the past, which are

incapable of flight.

In any case, recent examination of archaeopteryx's

feathers at the Smithsonian Institution has shown that they are the

same as those belonging to many modern accomplished fliers. 'This

implies at the very least that the beast could glide at some speed

and lays to rest the notion that the feathers evolved as either heat

insulation or as an aid to trapping insects.'

5. "Its bones were solid, not thin or hollow, like a birds."

Another idea that has been drastically revised. The long bones of

archaeopteryx (wings, legs) are known now to have been both thin AND

hollow.[We both agree here- G.F.] It is still debated whether they

were 'pneumatized' like a bird's, i.e. containing an air sac.

6. "It predates the general arrival of birds by sixty million

years" Until 1977, archaeopteryx was uniquely early in the fossil

record. But in that year, archaeologists from Brigham Young

University discovered, in western Colorado, a fossil of an

unequivocal bird, in rocks of the same period as archaeopteryx.

Professor John Ostrom of Yale University, who positively identified

the specimen, commented: "It is obvious we must now look for the

ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much earlier than that

in which archaeopteryx lived.'

This discovery much weakens the case for archaeopteryx as an

intermediate, and makes it that much more likely that the creature

was just one of a number of strange birds living at that time.

Professor Heribert-Nilsson commented forcefully that 'they are no

more reptiles than the present day penguins with their wing-

fins are transitional forms to fish'.

The further point might be made that even if archaeopteryx is

in fact a half-way form from reptiles to birds, it is still not very

enlightening about the process of evolution, nor in any way evidence

of Darwin's hoped for gradual transitions. For that, we would have

to see in the fossil record the slow development of feathers

(perhaps from scales, perhaps from some other origin) and the

hierarchical change of amphibian dinosaurs into delicate, light-

boned creatures that could soar above the Earth. And here,

characteristically, the rocks are mute.

 

***

"Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record" by Dr. Duane Gish

copyright 1985 page 110

In Dr. Gish's book he has put together an excellent analysis

of the Archaeopteryx:

In reference to Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis, Beddard

stated: "So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual

origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable

remains." During the eightyfive years since the publication of Beddard's

book, no better candidate as as intermediate between the reptiles and

birds than the Archaeopteryx has appeared. Not a single intermediate

with part-way wings or partway feathers has been discovered. Perhaps

this is why, with the passage of time, Archaeopteryx, some evolutionists

today not only assert that the bird is undoubtedly linked to reptiles but

that if clear impressions of feathers had not been found, Archaeopteryx,

would have been classified as a reptile. This is a gross overstatement,

to say the least.

***

"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Micahel Denton.

Page 176: No doubt it can be argued that Archaeopteryx hints of a

reptilian ancestry but surely hints do not provide a sufficient basis

upon which to secure the concept of the continuity of nature. Moreover,

there is no question that this archaic bird is not led up by a series of

transitional forms from an ordinary terrestrial reptile through a number

of gliding types with increasingly developed feathers until the avian

condition is reached.

***

"Adam and Evolution" By Professor Michael Pitman copyright 1984

pg 221 Although no fossils lead up to or away from it, Archaeopteryx is

often paraded as THE link fossil. there are five specimens of this bird

from Solnhofen limestone in Germany. Usually shown in textbooks is the

Berlin specimen. It has birdlike features in the form of wings, beak,

sclerotic eye-rings, fusion of the upper footbone into an extra section

of the limb, an opposable hind claw and, of course, feathers. reptilian

features include teeth in the bill, claws on the wings and a long bony

feathered tail.

Are these features so reptilian? Just as the pteranadon is seen as

a distinct, extinct type of reptile, so the creationist regards the

Archaeopteryx as a distinct type of bird. He argues that the 'reptilian

features' fall within the sphere of variability of a bird. We ourselves

have arm-bones similar to those of a bird, a whale and a bat, but are

distinct from these types...

...In the earliest known fossils of pterodactyls, bats and winged

insects, the instrument of flight is fully developed. Just so, the wings

and feathers of Archaeopteryx are as perfect as in modern birds.

Assymetric flight feathers resemble those of strong fliers; tailfeather

arrangement parallels that found in modern swans and hens. It is a moot

point just how good or bad at flying the Archaeopteryx was. There are

living flightless birds, such as the kiwi, with very small breastbones,

and not much keel (on to which the flight muscles are attached). Indeed,

many birds 'have wings, won't fly'; these include emus, cassowaries,

rheas, swimming birds (penguins), ostriches, extinct dodos, and moas.

...You can see why it is argued that the Archaeopteryx falls within

the sphere of a variation of a bird. The bony tail? this is a

distinctive feature and the Archaeopteryx is , in fact, classified in a

sub-class all its own. In the embryo some living birds have more tail

vertebrae that 'archy', which later fuse to become an upstanding

pygostyle. It is certainly a permutation on the usual tail-end

subroutine for birds, but so are its vertebrae, which have no saddle-

shaped articulations. This 'reptilian' feature is also found in

cormorants, darters, gulls and certain parrots.

The free (unfused) foot-bones and wrist bones, found in

archaeopteryx, are also found outside of reptiles- in penguins. Indeed,

archaeopteryx had perching feet...

What about the teeth? No living birds have socked teeth but some

fossil ones did. Some reptiles have teeth, some have not. The same

applies to fishes, amphibia and mammals...

In most modern birds, but not archaeopteryx, the plan for the fibula

and tibia legbones is modified, developmentally, so that the fibula is

much reduced and the result is a single structure- the tibia with ankle

bones fused to it and the 'vestigial' fibula along side it- which

articulates the footbones. Developmental manipulation of chick embryos

by Frenchman Armand Hampe' 'allowed' the fibula to attain the same length

as the tibia- as it normally does in vertebrates; articulation with the

ankle bones changed accordingly. Where the evolutionist sees Hempe's

results as an expression of ancestral relationship in leg-bones, the

creationist sees it as a modification, suitable for most birds, in the

vertebrate program.

A similar interpretation applies to wing claws. In most modern

birds they are suppressed but the young ostrich, rhea and the touraco of

Africa have them. So do young South American Hoatzin, a bird which

shares a number of features with the Archaeopteryx. It leaps, flaps and

dives about wood rivers and swamps of the Amazon valley today.

Archaeopteryx could represent a group of distinct organisms that

showed the characteristics of bird and reptile. No other fossils lead

either to or from it.... Links are not links if they are mosaics of

complete functional traits from other groups. whales and seals have a

mixture of fish and mammal traits, penguins have fin-shaped wings and

bats are a mixture of bird and mammal but no one calls them intermediate.

No doubt Archaeopteryx is an odd mixture of subroutines but so are many

other creatures.

Because bird types are found from the early Cenozoic, it seems only

a matter of time before they are found in the Cretaceous or Jurassic

beds. Already Cretaceous Icthyornis shows signs of having been a tern:

and in 1977 'Dinosaur Jim' Jensen found an avian femur and two connected

shoulder bones in Jurrassic rocks, where he had previously excavated his

dinosaurs in Western Colorado. The splendid isolation of the

Archaeopteryx was relieved by a bird which predated it.