Archaeopteryx by the Numbers | The Institute for Creation Research
Archaeopteryx by the Numbers

Sometimes scientists get a chance to collaborate. This happened last year when a fellow creation-based researcher invited me to contribute comments about bird and dinosaur anatomy to his statistical analysis of relevant fossils. The end result was a technical (i.e., peer-reviewed) article published in the Journal of Creation.1 Our main question asked if certain fossils’ features fall into an evolution-friendly or Genesis-fitting classification. This experience illustrated how shared talents can lead to a more defensible worldview.

We scientists too often believe our results came from objective analyses, not seeing the subjective ideas that crept in unnoticed. Evolutionary workers now call dinosaurs “non-avian dinosaurs” to distinguish them from birds, which they call “avian dinosaurs.” They have classified some fossil birds as reptiles and certain fossil reptiles as birds. Many bolster these beliefs by citing analyses backed with numbers from measurements, formulae, and statistics. What could be more objective than numbers?

But the statements “birds evolved from dinosaurs” and “God created…every winged bird according to its kind”2 cannot both be true.3 Do the numbers really support this evolutionary perspective? Our analysis showed that those kinds of numbers are more subjective than they at first appeared.

Computational biologists use formulae to assign numbers to estimates of how different one specimen is from another. The raw data are the fossils in the ground—fossils that are almost always incomplete. Someone has to measure various parameters, like the number and placement of holes in the skull, teeth in the jaw, or claws on a foot.

Then, formulae turn those initial measurements into values that indicate how likely it looks for creatures to belong to different kinds. A simple example formula uses a calculation to estimate the anatomical distance between two specimens: dij = mij/nij.4 Workers can add to this an assigned cutoff value, usually different for each set of fossil measurements. Stricter cutoffs produce more groups and looser cutoffs lump more specimens into fewer groups. Which slant would you prefer?

These processes present plenty of room for bias. Subjectivity enters when selecting fossil sets, creature traits, the importance of each trait, completeness of data sets, which formulae to use, cutoff values, and more.

Prior studies have grouped the extinct bird Archaeopteryx with certain extinct reptiles. But Archaeopteryx was no reptile, despite what someone’s numbers may say. Its body balanced over its knees like modern birds, not over its hips as in heavier-tailed theropods. It had flight feathers like birds and unlike theropods. However, it had teeth in its beak and long tails, unlike most birds.5

Numeric results that lump this creature with reptiles play into the impossible story that theropods evolved into birds.6 That’s why we did our own study. Our new filters recategorized some of the same specimens using the same trait lists that others had used. And our equally numeric results separated Archaeopteryx from reptiles.

What does all this show?

My small part in this project helped me see even more ways that subjectivity creeps into the classification process. In response to the one who says Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur and that numbers back it up, I can now ask, “Whose numbers?”

References

  1. Cserhati, M., B. Thomas, and J. Tay. 2020. Hierarchical clustering in dinosaur baraminology studies. Journal of Creation. 34 (3): 64-73.
  2. Genesis 1:21.
  3. To evolve implies a series of forms in between basic kinds, but Genesis 1 says creatures reproduce according to their kinds.
  4. dij is the distance between two species i and j; nij is the number of comparable characters between them; and mij is the number of mismatched characters.
  5. Archaeopteryx was more like birds than extinct reptiles, but for all we know it may lie outside both groups. Whatever man-made group category we place it in, Archaeopteryx was no evolutionary link but a fully formed flying animal.
  6. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia listed anatomical challenges for theropod-to-bird evolution, citing “such problems as the transformation of teeth and tooth replacement, the transformation of a dinosaurian septate, hepatic-piston breathing system to a bird flow-through lung, the complete abandonment of a balanced seesaw body plan to the avian model, and the reelongation of already foreshortened forelimbs, to mention a few.” Feduccia, A. 1999. 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the cladogram. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (9): 4740-4742.

* Dr. Thomas is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.

Cite this article: Brian Thomas, Ph.D. 2021. Archaeopteryx by the Numbers. Acts & Facts. 50 (5).

The Latest
NEWS
Brainy Paper Wasps
Wasps (Family Vespidae) have a bad rap, but their benefits actually outweigh their painful sting—although many would disagree! What is the function...

CREATION PODCAST
The Secrets of the Cell | The Creation Podcast: Episode 29
Cells are the basic units of life, and in some forms they are actually organisms. What is a cell? What goes on inside of a cell? Did all life come from...

NEWS
Fossil Footprints Fit Flood Ice-Age Model
Anthropologists Thomas Urban (Cornell University) and Daron Duke (Far Western Anthropological Research Group) recently found preserved human footprints...

NEWS
Deep-Sea Lobster Microbiome
Research continues regarding complex and amazing microbiomes found on or within a variety of creatures.1 The microbiome is a microbial community...

NEWS
"Massively Exciting" Fossil Find
Now this is exciting: “Geologists have found the fossil of the earliest known animal predator. The 560-million-year-old specimen is the first of...

NEWS
Copulation Didn't Kill the Frogs, the Flood Did
Evolutionary scientists recently studied 168 frog fossils from central Germany, concluding that the frogs all drowned while aggressively mating. They claim...

CREATION PODCAST
What Can We Learn From Fossils? | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
Is evolution seen in the fossil record? Why are fossilized terrestrial animals found buried with marine creatures? What conditions were needed to form...

NEWS
Be Not Deceived: Spiritually Train to Overcome Secular Science...
Thorough instruction and discipline are the hallmark qualities of a strong military training program. Well-trained soldiers can think on their feet, adapt...

CREATION.LIVE PODCAST
Jurassic World: Dominion - Fun Movie, Bad Science | Creation.Live...
Covered in feathers, running faster than cars, and living in cold climates...these are just a few of the ideas introduced in Jurassic World: Dominion....

NEWS
CET Model in Plants Is Clearly Seen
Plant scientists have known for decades that plants aren’t just static entities. The half-million or more species of plants in the world display...