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
Algal Microfossils Show No Evolution
Creation scientists maintain that if something is living, then it’s automatically complex. This applies to organisms ranging from a single bacterium...

CREATION PODCAST
Rapid Erosion Devastates Deep Time! | The Creation Podcast: Episode...
Erosion takes place slowly, over millions of years, right? That's what mainstream science tells us anyway. Or, does erosion happen far more...

NEWS
Flood Solves Land and Marine Mixing Near the Andes
A recent article published by Hakai Magazine claims to reveal secrets of an ancient inland sea that existed east of the Andes Mountains,1...

NEWS
T. rex Out of Nowhere
As one of the largest predators ever at 45 feet long, it’s no wonder school children are enthralled with Tyrannosaurus rex. But where did the...

NEWS
February 2024 ICR Wallpaper
"Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (1 John 4:11 NKJV) ICR February 2024 wallpaper is now available...

NEWS
Evolutionist and ICR Research Both Attempting to Explain Fossil...
Recent evolutionary research is attempting to provide an explanation for why some animals became smaller over time. Or equivalently, it is attempting...

NEWS
Animal Features Did Not Evolve
There’s no doubt that animals in God’s creation have iconic features. The question is, did these features evolve or were they created that...

CREATION PODCAST
Taking a Closer Look at Uniquely Human Eyes | The Creation Podcast:...
While we might take them for granted, our eyes are incredibly complex organs. How do they work? Is it possible for eyes to have evolved over long...

NEWS
The Conserved Complexity of Eye Cell Types
The late leading evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr, said the eye appeared at least 40 times “during the evolution of animal diversity.”1...

TECHNICAL PAPERS
Crassostrea Oyster Fossils Show Extreme Longevity
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D., Richard Overman, Frank J. Sherwin, D.Sc. (Hon.) In Creation Research Society Quarterly. 60 (3): 171-190. Abstract This...