|
Archaeopteryx
Bryan Sharp
The Missing Link?
Perhaps the most famous of evolution’s proposed missing links is the Archaeopteryx. Seven fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx reveal an animal with a mixture of features found in reptiles and birds. The most obvious avian features include feathers and an opposable big toe. Perhaps the most often mentioned reptilian characteristics are its teeth, its claws and the shape of its skull. Because of this mingling of traits, this extinct bird has long been touted as proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs. At fist glance, this creature does indeed appear to be some type of lizard-bird intermediate, but looks can be deceiving.1 Rather than proving birds evolved from dinosaurs, when thoughtfully examined, Archaeopteryx reveals the assumptions and inconsistencies of evolution.
Bird Features or Lizard Features?
For starters, at least some of the alleged reptilian characteristics are present in other birds. For example, the touraco, and the hoatzin, African and South American birds respectively, each have two claws on their wings in the juvenile stage. The ostrich has three claws on its wings as an adult. Additionally, Archaeopteryx’s teeth are bird teeth, not reptile teeth. A number of extinct birds possessed “unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots,” while the supposed dinosaur ancestors of Archaeopteryx had “serrated teeth with straight roots.” Furthermore, it should not be surprising that some birds had teeth, since this is true of all other vertebrates. “Some fish have teeth; some do not. Some amphibians have teeth; some do not. Some reptiles have teeth; some do not. Most mammals have teeth, but some do not.”
Inherited or Shared?
The bigger problem, though, is not whether certain traits are reptilian or avian. Even if some traits found in Archaeopteryx are predominately found in reptiles, their occurrence in birds does not prove birds evolved from dinosaurs. Evolutionists assume claws, teeth, etc. evolved from reptiles, and then point to the appearance of these traits in birds as proof that they are related to reptiles. Claws and teeth could simply be traits shared by both types of animals. Even by evolutionary standards, a mixing of traits does not prove relationship. According to evolutionary theory, shared characteristics can indicate either relationship or converging evolution. Converging evolution means that each animal evolved their similarities independently. For example, the duckbilled platypus has a flat, beaver-like tail and a duck-like bill, yet no one claims this animal is evolutionarily partway between beavers and ducks. Instead, evolutionists claim this is an example of converging evolution. That is, evolutionists claim these animals are unrelated but have converged to similar points. So how do evolutionists determine whether shared characteristics are evidence of relationship or the result of converging evolution? There is no purely objective test. Thus the reason Archaeopteryx is said to be related to reptiles is not just because of its looks, but because it fits a pre-existing notion of how things evolved.
Real Transitional Animals
Furthermore, a true transitional animal should not merely possess characteristics of two other animals, but should possess characteristics that are partway between two other characteristics. For example, a true transitional animal, showing a gradual transformation from reptile to bird, should possess neither scales nor feathers, but something that is partway between scales and feathers. After all, if scales did not slowly 3 evolve into feathers, then feathers must have appeared all at once, fully formed. In other words, excluding something partway between scales and feathers, the only other alternative is that a scaled lizard gave birth to a feathered bird.
Proof or Circular Reasoning?
But even if Archaeopteryx had features half-way between scales and feather, this still would not prove evolution happened. A creature with traits like this would certainly come closer to showing that is it possible evolution did occur, but it would still not prove that it actually had. So even if we accept the theory that all life forms evolved from a common ancestor, the only reason to consider Archaeopteryx as proof that birds evolved from reptiles is because we already believed it anyway. This circular reasoning is characteristic of evolutionary theory. There is no real proof of macro-evolution. There are only observations which can be touted as proof by ignoring true science and other possibilities.
1. For a picture and an evolutionist’s point of view, see www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
2. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! . 138-139.
3. For a detailed discussion of the impossibility of such, see: Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. 202-209.
Suggested Further Reading: Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells
This site is © Copyright Tri-County Church of Christ 2007, All Rights Reserved.
Web templates
|
|
|
