But wait, shout the evolutionists, we have Archaeopteryx! Really, let’s wait. In four cases—flying insects, flying mammals, flying reptiles, and birds—flying creatures supposedly gradually evolved from non-flying creatures, and each transition required millions of years. In each case, there must have been a large number of transitional stages. Many thousands of undeniable transitional forms should be filling museum display cases, graphically documenting these transitions. But evolutionists can provide only a single creature—only a single fossil creature—that might even provide an apparent resemblance. That creature is, of course, Archaeopteryx, of which about five fossil fragments plus a single feather have been found in Upper Jurassic rocks (which evolutionary geologists assume to be about 150 million years old). All were found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (Germany), and Archaeopteryx is claimed to be the oldest known bird.
Regarding Archaeopteryx, Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis, Beddard notes: “Thus, all these creatures were so unequivocally birds that the actual origin of birds is barely hinted at by the structure of these remarkable remains.” For 85 years since Beddard’s book was published, no better candidate for a transition between reptiles and birds than Archaeopteryx has appeared. No transitional form with partial wings or partial feathers has been discovered. Perhaps this is why, over time, Archaeopteryx, in the eyes of some evolutionists, has been seen as increasingly “reptilian.” Contrary to Beddard’s assessment of Archaeopteryx, some evolutionists today not only claim that this bird is related to reptiles but that if clear wing impressions had not been found, Archaeopteryx would have been classified as a reptile. At the very least, this is an exaggerated claim.
From the reconstruction, it is clearly seen that Archaeopteryx was largely a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, bird legs, wings, feathers, and a furcula or wishbone. No other animal except birds possesses feathers and a wishbone. The wings were identical to the feathers of today’s birds. Thus, Pycraft states: “But in Archaeopteryx, it should be noted that the feathers in no way differ from the most perfectly developed types of feathers that we know.” Feathers have a very complex structure, optimally built to perform the task assigned to them, preserving heat and aerodynamic functions. The idea that feathers evolved from frayed scales is pure fantasy. Scales and feathers developed in completely different ways.
It was long claimed that Archaeopteryx could not fly, or at the very least, that it was a poor flyer. As Feduccia and Tordoff pointed out, however, the primary feathers of Archaeopteryx were like those of modern birds. The primary feathers of flightless birds are symmetrical, with a shaft running through the center of the feather. In the case of all modern flying birds, the primary feathers are asymmetrical, with the feathering positioned more towards the front edge of the wing. This asymmetry has aerodynamic functions related to flight. Feduccia and Tordoff also point out that the basic pattern and proportions of modern wings were present in Archaeopteryx.
Furthermore, Olson and Feduccia document the fact that there was nothing in the anatomy of Archaeopteryx that would prevent it from being a powerful flyer. Those who suggest that Archaeopteryx was incapable of flight based such claims on the alleged description of an overturned ossified sternum in Archaeopteryx. Olson and Feduccia, however, draw attention to the fact that Archaeopteryx had a particularly robust furcula. A robust furcula would provide a suitable point of origin for a well-developed pectoral muscle, which could generate the force needed for flight.
It is claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was more reptilian than birdlike. Recently, however, Whetstone removed the “London” specimen from its limestone slab.5 Studies have shown that the skull is much wider and more birdlike than previously thought.6 This led Benton to claim that: “The details of the brain chamber and the associated bones in the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not an ancestral bird…”7 Benton can only suggest that Archaeopteryx may be a branch from an earlier bird lineage.
There are three views on the ancestors of Archaeopteryx that modern evolutionists firmly hold.7 Some suggest that Archaeopteryx is related to crocodiles, others believe it is related to thecodont reptiles, while some propose the possibility that they originated from theropod dinosaurs. John Ostrom has long been a proponent of the dinosaurian origin of Archaeopteryx. However, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize Ostrom’s hypotheses, claiming, among other things, that he misinterpreted the homologies of the organs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs.9
Ostrom also characterized the pubis (pubic bone) of Archaeopteryx as being more similar to that of dinosaurs than birds. He reconstructed the pubis in such a way that he concluded it was directed straight downward, which is a position that is intermediate between reptiles and birds. Walker, however, claims that Ostrom was wrong, and Walker reconstructs the pubis as more birdlike, oriented backward.10
Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone also questioned Ostrom’s claim that birds originated from dinosaurs.11 Their analysis is based on the structure of the avian tarsus (ankle) and bird teeth. They say:
“Ostrom… claims that the skeleton of Archaeopteryx is identical to that of small theropod dinosaurs. We believe that many of these ‘coelurosaurs’ have been incorrectly identified. This is certainly true regarding the tarsal region, where Archaeopteryx has a pretibial bone, fibula, and calcaneum of the avian type. In the jaw, Archaeopteryx has unserrated teeth, compressed bases, and elongated roots, like those of other Mesozoic birds.”
The presence of claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx is often cited as evidence of its reptilian origin. However, there are at least three birds that are alive and well and have claws on their wings, but no one currently claims that they are intermediates between reptiles and birds. The Hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin) possesses two claws in its juvenile stage.12 Furthermore, it is a poor flyer, with a surprisingly small keel, which is another feature attributed to Archaeopteryx. The young turaco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and is also a poor flyer in its youth.13 The ostrich has three claws on each wing, which could even be characterized as more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.
The next reptilian characteristic of Archaeopteryx was its possession of teeth. If this is a trait inherited from a reptilian ancestor, and if toothed birds later evolved into toothless ones, then the fossil record should provide intermediates that would document the gradual loss of teeth. No intermediary has ever been found. Some fossil birds have teeth, and some do not. This is not surprising considering that it is characteristic of other groups of vertebrates—fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Furthermore, following the idea that the absence of teeth signifies a “more advanced” stage, then the platypus and the echidna, mammals that have no teeth, should be considered more advanced or highly developed than humans. And yet, in many other ways, as mentioned earlier, the platypus and echidna should be regarded as the most primitive mammals. Thus, the possession or absence of teeth proves nothing about the ultimate ancestor.
As previously described, the platypus is a strange mosaic, possessing traits associated with mammals, reptiles, and birds—one creature that could neither be the ancestor nor descendant of any other creature. In a somewhat similar manner, Archaeopteryx, though undoubtedly a bird, was a mosaic that included some traits generally considered “reptilian.” In this regard, it is interesting to note the comment of Stephen Jay Gould from Harvard University and Niles Eldredge from the American Museum of Natural History. Both are fervent anti-creationists. They claim that:
“At a higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological traits, gradualism has always had problems, although it remains the ‘official’ position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth transitions between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; certainly, there is no evidence for them in the fossil record (strange mosaics such as Archaeopteryx do not count).”14
There are several important aspects of this claim, each of which seriously damages the credibility of evolutionary theory. First, it should be explained that Baupläne is a German word meaning basic morphological traits or fundamentally different types of creatures. Notice that Gould and Eldredge claim that at this taxonomic level, i.e., at the level of higher categories such as orders, classes, and phyla (which possess different basic and morphological traits), evidence for gradual change is always lacking. Not only is it impossible at this level to find a smooth series of intermediaries in the fossil record, but it is also impossible to even imagine what such intermediaries could have looked like (for example, try to imagine the emergence of a Pteranodon with half a jaw and half a wing!). Finally, note that Gould and Eldredge specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, calling it, as the platypus was called, a strange mosaic that does not count. So much for Archaeopteryx as an intermediary!
Regarding the status of Archaeopteryx, it is interesting to note what some evolutionists had to say in the past. Lecomte du Nouy says:
“Unfortunately, most of the more important types in the animal kingdom are unconnected from a paleontological point of view. Despite the fact that it is undoubtedly connected to both groups, birds and reptiles (a connection that anatomy and physiology of living specimens today demonstrate), we are not even authorized to consider the case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By a link, we mean the necessary transitional stage between groups such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal that exhibits characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link until intermediate stages are found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown.”15
Swinton, an evolutionist and bird expert, says:
“The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil record of the stage through which the great change from reptile to bird was achieved.”16
Romer says that:
“This bird from the Jurassic period (Archaeopteryx) stands in great isolation; we do not know about its supposed thecodont ancestors, nor about its connection with later ‘true’ birds any more than before.”17
A recent discovery by paleontologist James Jensen dealt a particularly serious blow to claims that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form between reptiles and birds. Jensen found what he believes to be fossil remains of unquestionably modern birds, in Upper Jurassic rocks, the same rocks in which Archaeopteryx was found.18 Regardless of what one thinks about the timescale or the geological column, this discovery, if fully confirmed, means that Archaeopteryx was a contemporary of modern birds. John Ostrom, commenting on this turn of events, says: “It is clear that we now must seek the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than the one in which Archaeopteryx lived.”19 Evolutionists have long supported the claim that contemporaries cannot have a direct ancestor-descendant relationship, but if they are related, they must have evolved from a common ancestor sometime in the past.
That is so only because of their great lack of transitional forms, that evolutionists spoke so loudly about Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx appears suddenly in the fossil record, a powerful flyer with wings according to the basic pattern, with proportions of modern bird wings, and feathers identical to those of modern flying birds, and it is undoubtedly a true bird without a single structure in a transitional state. Du Nouy’s claim that “we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link” is even more valid today than when it was published almost 30 years ago. Archaeopteryx was a “strange mosaic that does not count.” Reptiles and birds are thus separated by a great chasm, just as the creation model predicts.
- Literature
- F. E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, Longsmans, Green and Co., London, 1898, p. 160.
- W. P. Pycraft, Knowledge and Science News, Sept. 1906, p. 531, cited by W. K. Gregory, N. Y. Acad. Sci. Ann. 27:31 (1916).
- A. Feduccia and H. B. Tordoff, Science 203:1020 (1979).
- S. L. Olson and A. Feduccia, Nature 278:247 (1979).
- K. N. Whetstone, J. Vert. Paleont. 2:439 (1983).
- P. G. Whybrow, Neues Jb. Geol. Paleont. Mh. 198:184 (1982).
- J. Benton, Nature 305:99 (1983).
- J. H. Ostrom, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 8:91 (1976).
- S. Tarsitano and M. K. Hecht, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 69:149 (1980).
- A. D. Walker, Geol. Mag. 117:595 (1980).
- L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart and K. N. Whetstone, Auk 97:86 (1980).
- J. L. Grimmer, Nat. Geo. Mag. Sept. 1962, p. 391.
- C. G. Sibley and J. E. Ahqist, Auk 90:1 (1973).
- S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge, Paleobiology 3:147 (1977).
- L. du Nouy, Human Destiny, The New American Library, New York, 1947, p. 58.
- W. E. Swinton, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1, A. J. Marshall, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1960, p. 1.
- A. S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, 1968, p. 144.
- J. L. Marx, Science 199:284 (1978).
- Science News 112:198 (1977).