Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again | The Institute for Creation Research

Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again

The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it?

Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs.1 ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight feathers, wings, perching feet, and a wishbone… Archaeopteryx is still just an extinct bird."2

Textbooks and museums still teach that Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary transition from reptiles. But even if its classification waffles again, it is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor for birds by the fact that scientists found a crow-size bird and extinct four-winged birds in rock layers designated to be below those containing Archaeopteryx.3,4

A team of Australian scientists recently performed another trait analysis, but this one included more body features and slightly different underlying assumptions than the previous study. Publishing in the Royal Society's Biology Letters, the researchers wrote that Archaeopteryx's assignment to a dinosaur group earlier this year "was acknowledged to be weakly supported."5

They constructed new cladograms that pictured Archaeopteryx with birds, and not with any dinosaurs, with a caption that reads, "Archaeopteryx robustly reinstated as the most basal bird."5

After generations of experts had concurred that it was a bird, why would one group suggest that Archaeopteryx should be reclassified as some kind of a dinosaur? And why would another group, using similar techniques, pull the plug on that assessment so soon afterward? After all, they both have access to the same data.

The difference must not be found in the fossil data, but in the methods the researchers used to analyze them. And those methods—called "cladistics"—assume evolutionary ancestry before the data are even approached.6

In fact, even the report's title assumes evolution, referring to Archaeopteryx as "primitive." But none of its features are primitive, just unique. However, in order to portray Archaeopteryx as the progenitor of other birds, it must be labeled "primitive," whether or not its anatomy actually reveals primitive features.

Since the fossil has the same core features as modern birds, it makes sense to say that Archaeopteryx was a bird. And based on the quality of its preservation as a fossil, this particular creature appears to have died in a watery catastrophe, like Noah's Flood from just thousands of years ago.7

References

  1. Kaplan, M. Archaeopteryx no longer first bird. Nature News. Posted on nature.com July 27, 2011, accessed October 27, 2011.
  2. Thomas, B. Early Bird Gets the Boot: Researchers Reclassify Archaeopteryx. ICR News. Posted on icr.org August 5, 2011, accessed October 27, 2011.
  3. Beardsley, T. 1986. Fossil bird shakes evolutionary hypotheses. Nature. 322 (6081): 677.
  4. Xu, X. et al. 2011. An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature. 475 (7357): 465-470.
  5. Lee, M. S. Y. and T. H. Worthy. Likelihood reinstates Archaeopteryx as a primitive bird. Biology Letters. Published online before print October 26, 2011.
  6. In the following lay definition, evolution is entirely assumed: "Cladistic Analysis is a tool used by paleontologists and biologists to understand the tree of life. It is based on a straightforward principal. If you are considering more than one possible family tree, the one that accounts for the most observed characters with the fewest evolutionary steps is probably the accurate one." National Center for the Study of Cladistic Existentialism fact sheet. Posted on ncsce.org, accessed October 27, 2011.
  7. Thomas, B. Archaeopteryx Fossil Shows 'Striking' Tissue Preservation. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 19, 2010, accessed October 27, 2011.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on November 8, 2011.

The Latest
NEWS
Fossil Chromatin Looks Young
What are the odds that a buried animal would still have intact DNA after 125 million years? Researchers publishing in the journal Communications Biology...

NEWS
Inside October 2021 Acts & Facts
How is the Lord’s handiwork on display at John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park? Does the universe look old? What can we learn about science and...

NEWS
Two-Volume Series: Restoring the Truth about Origins
The subject of origins continues to attract interest from the public and the scientific establishment. Understanding our origins informs us of who we are...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Floods Form Fossils Fast
Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with...

ACTS & FACTS
A Battle for Hearts
Since the ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History opened in fall of 2019, tens of thousands of people have walked through our doors. They...

APOLOGETICS
Eating Bugs Isn't Always So Simple
The Lord Jesus Christ deserves glory for why He made Earth’s diverse creatures, and He also deserves glory for the complicated details of how...

ACTS & FACTS
Does the Universe Look Old?
Since distant galaxies are billions of light-years away, some understandably assume that distant starlight must have taken billions of years to reach...

ACTS & FACTS
Hawaii Behind the Scenes
ICR Research Scientist Dr. Brian Thomas and ICR Video Producer Clint Loveness, with help from friends and family, recently shot footage in Maui, Hawaii,...

ACTS & FACTS
Mutation, Design, and Faith
Any alteration in a cell’s DNA sequence is a mutation. These changes can come from copying errors, exposure to chemicals or radiation, or from...

ACTS & FACTS
Another Function of 'Junk DNA' Discovered
For decades, evolutionists suggested that huge sections of our genome (about half) did not actively code for the production of proteins or polypeptides—and...