As A Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly

by Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.*

Impact article #198**, September 1989

(Published by the Institute for Creation Research)

(c) 1989

There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose

fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West

Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that

Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply

won't fly.

Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx

argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between

reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have

been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about

150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale.

Ninety years ago, with reference to Archaeopteryx and to two other

ancient birds, Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, Beddard declared, "So

emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of

Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable

remains."(1) During the years since publication of Beddard's book, no

better candidate as an intermediate between reptiles and birds has

appeared, and so, in the eyes of its beholders, Archaeopteryx has become

more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that

Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years,

Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like

its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at, into a creature some

evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!

What is the true status of Archaeopteryx? Was it a transitional

form between reptiles and birds? First, the general nature of the

evidence: The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex

invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins,

brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the

sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly

the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond

reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about

disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless.

Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying

creatures--flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying

mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed even incomprehensible, that

millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types

of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land

animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers

of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our

museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils

of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor

or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!

Archaeopteryx had an impressive array of features that

immediately identify it as a bird, whatever else may be said about it.

It had perching feet. Several of its fossils bear the impression of

feathers. These feathers were identical to those of modern birds in

every respect. The primary feathers of non-flying birds are distinctly

different from those of flying birds. Archaeopteryx had the feathers of

flying birds,(2) had the basic pattern and proportions of the avian

wing, and an especially robust furcula (wishbone). Furthermore, there

was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would have prevented it

being a powered flyer.(3) No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered

creature that flew. It was a bird!

It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized

characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.(4) Research on various

anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so,

however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question

is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen

was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be

bird-like, not reptile-like.(5) Benton has stated that "details of the

brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest

that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the

early avian stem."(6) In this same paper, Benton states that the

quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the

skull) in Archaeopteryx was single-headed as in reptiles. Using a newly

devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that

the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaeopteryx was

double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds,(7)

rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.

L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the

teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from

theropod dinosaursÄthe teeth being those typical of other (presumably

later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those

of dinosaurs.(8) John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian

ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed

downward-Äan intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian

dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points

backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's

interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was

oriented in a bird-like position.(9) Further, Tarsitano and Hecht

criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin

of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the

limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.(10)

A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of

Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region

is very similar to the otic region of modern birds.(11) J.R. Hinchliffe,

utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have

established that the "hand" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV,

while the digits of the "hand" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits

I, II, and III.

Scales are flat horny plates; feathers are very complex in

structure consisting of a central shaft from which radiate barbs and

barbules. Barbules are equipped with tiny hooks which lock onto the

barbs and bind the feather surface into a flat, strong, flexible vane.

Feathers and scales arise from different layers of the skin.

Furthermore, the development of a feather is extremely complex, and

fundamentally different from that of a scale. Feathers, as do hairs,

but unlike scales, develop from follicles. A hair, however, is a much

simpler structure than a feather. The developing feather is protected

by a horny sheath, and forms around a bloody, conical, inductive dermal

core. Not only is the developing feather sandwiched between the sheath

and dermal core, it is complex in structure. Development of the cells

that will become the mature feather involves complex processes. Cells

migrate and split apart in highly specific patterns to form the complex

arrangement of barbs and barbules.(12)

Philip Regal attempts to imagine how feathers may have developed

from scales.(13) Regal presents a series of hypothetical events whereby

the elongation of body scales on reptiles, as an adaptive response to

excessive solar heat, eventually produced feathers. What we are left to

believe is that a series of genetic mistakes, or mutations, just

happened somehow to result in a sequence of incredible events that not

only converted a simple horny plate into the tremendously complex and

marvelously engineered structure of a feather, but completely

reorganized the simple method of development of a scale into the highly

complex process necessary to produce a feather. What an incredible

faith in the blind forces of evolution! Regal's paper simply adds

another "Just-so" story to evolutionary scenarios, completely devoid of

empirical support.

Recent events cast even further doubt on Archaeopteryx as a

transitional form. If the claims of Sankar Chatterjee prove to be

valid, then certainly Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestral bird, and

dinosaurs could not be ancestral to birds. Chatterjee and his co-

workers at Texas Tech University claim to have found two crow-sized

fossils of a bird near Post, Texas, in rocks supposedly 225 million

years old--thus allegedly 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx and

as old as the first dinosaurs. Totally contrary to what evolutionists

would expect for such a fossil bird however, Chatterjee claims that his

bird is even more bird-like than Archaeopteryx! In contrast to

Archaeopteryx, this bird had a keel-like breastbone and hollow bones.

In most other respects, it was similar to Archaeopteryx.(14) If

evolutionary assumptions are correct, this bird should have been much

more reptile-like than Archaeopteryx. In fact, he shouldn't even exist!

Another threat to the notion that Archaeopteryx was intermediate

between reptiles and birds are the claims of Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous

British astronomer, fellow astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe, and

Israeli scientist Lee Spetner, based on detailed photographic evidence,

that Archaeopteryx is a fraud.(15,16) They maintain that an artificial

matrix was placed on a reptilian fossil and that modern feathers were

used to impress the matrix, to leave a likeness of fossil feathers.

Scientists of the British Museum of Natural History have defended the

authenticity of the fossil.(17) If the allegations of Hoyle,

Wickramasinghe, and Spetner turn out to be correct, it would be a

devastating blow to evolutionists. If the fossil is a forgery, however,

it would have to be a devilishly clever one, because the forger would

not only have to fake the feathers, but also somehow emplace the many

bird-like features described in this article.

The conclusion which appears to be most reasonable is that

Archaeopteryx was a true bird, remarkably isolated from any alleged

reptilian progenitor and other birds. A discussion of other features of

Archaeopteryx, such as its teeth and clawed wings, may be found in

"Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record."(18)

* Dr. Gish is Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research.

 

References

1. F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds,

Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160.

2. Alan Feduccia and H.B Tordoft, Science 203:1020(1979).

3. S.L. Olson and Alan Feduccia, Nature 278:247(1979).

4. A.J. Charig, A New Look at Dinosaurs, Heinemann, London, 1979,

p. 139.

5. K.N. Whetstone, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

[2(4):439(1983)].

6. M.J. Benton, Nature 305:99(1983).

7. B. Haubitz, M. Prokop, W. Dohring, J.H. Ostrom, and P.

Wellnhofer, Paleobiology 14(2):206 (1988).

8. L.D. Martin, J.D. Stewart, and K.N. Whetstone, The Auk 97:86

(1980).

9. A.D. Walker, Geological Magazine 117:595 (1980).

10. S. Tarsitano and M.K. Hecht, Zoological Journal of the Linnaean

Society 69:149 (1980).

11. A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International

Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

5(2):177, June 1985.

12. A.M. Lucas and P.R. Slettenhein, Avian Anatomy: Integument.

[J.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1972.

13. P.J. Regal, The Quarterly Review of Biology 50:35 (1975).

14. S. Weisburd, Science News, August 16, 1986, p. 103; Tim

Beardsley, Nature 322:677 (1986).

15. Gail Vines, New Scientist, 14 March 1985, p. 3; Ted Nield, New

Scientist, 1 August 1985, P. 49

16. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Archaeopteryx: The

Primordial Bird, A Case of Fossil Forgery, Christopher Davies

Publishers, Swansea, 1986.

17. A.J. Charig, F. Greenaway, A.C. Milner, C.A. Walker, and P.J.

Whybrow, Science 232:622(1986).

18. D.T. Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,

Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, CA, 1985.

 

* Dr. Gish is Vice-President of the Institute for Creation Research

** Should be Impact article #195

Copies of this article may be ordered from:

Institute for Creation Research

P.O. Box 2667

El Cajon, CA 92021

***************************

This article was proofread and corrected (from a scanned article) by:

 

Origins Talk RBBS * (314) 821-1078

Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.

405 North Sappington Road

Glendale, MO 63122-4729

(314) 821-1234

Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS

(719) 528-1363

 


Index - Evolution or Creation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231