It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. When the cranium of the London specimen was removed from the limestone and studied, it was shown to be bird-like, not reptile-like. Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."In this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles. Using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds, rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.
L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs—the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs. John Ostrom, a strong advocate of a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, had claimed that the pubis of Archaeopteryx pointed downward—an intermediate position between that of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which points forward, and that of birds, which points backward. A.D. Walker, in more recent studies, asserts that Ostrom's interpretation is wrong, and that the pubis of Archaeopteryx was oriented in a bird-like position. Further, Tarsitano and Hecht criticize various aspects of Ostrom's hypothesis of a dinosaurian origin of birds, arguing that Ostrom had misinterpreted the homologies of the limbs of Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs.
A.D. Walker has presented an analysis of the ear region of Archaeopteryx that shows, contrary to previous studies, that this region is very similar to the otic region of modern birds. J.R. Hinchliffe, utilizing modern isotopic techniques on chick embryos, claims to have established that the "hand" of birds consists of digits II, III and IV, while the digits of the "hand" of theropod dinosaurs consist of digits I, II, and III.
So while we can debate about whether or not Archaeopteryx is a bird or a therapod for the next several years, the big question is where are all the other billions of other transitional birds? Did one generation of therapods just suddenly give birth to another generation of feathered therapods and then the next give birth to ones with a whole new set of avian features and after all those were in place they just started flying?
Vade Retro once provided this description the evolution of the bird. A small bi-ped trying to escape a predator by grabbing some air with it's forepaws to enhance its cornering. Thus discovering aerodynamics and the rest as you guys say is evolution. Well Vade is crying about how nobody wants to believe his fairy tale, but I'm sorry it's a little bit of stretch and not exactly scientific.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Gish is a charlatan. Here, he has simply scanned the literature for every source which argues for an avian interpretation for anything at all about Archaeopteryx, ignoring everything else. When Bellesiles was caught doing that for the gun-grabber crowd, he got fired. Then again, he was in a real academic setting.
The characteristics which Gish says establish Archaeopteryx as a bird are largely wrong. Archaeopteryx did NOT have perching feet (neither do many modern birds), and its hallux was not as well-developed as those of modern birds. The flight feathers are virtually identical to modern birds, but no downy under-feathers have ever been found on an Archaeopteryx skeleton. And, while Archaeopteryx did possess the furcula and flight feathers of modern flying birds, it did not have the large breastbone keel or the fused arm joints that are such a necessary part of flight, and it is questionable whether Archaeopteryx was capable of powered flight.If the creationists are to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, and not a transitional between therapods and birds, they must explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which appear in the skeleton. Some of the reptilian characteristics found in Archaeopteryx are also found in primitive extinct birds such as Hesperornis and Icthyornis; other reptilian characteristics of the Archaeopteryx skeleton are not found in any other species of bird, living or extinct. Archaeopteryx had, for example, a full set of socketed teeth, which were typical of those found in therapod dinosaurs. While the primitive Hesperornis also possessed socketed teeth, they are no longer present in any modern bird, and according to paleontologists, these reptilian teeth were lost by the ancient birds as the avian bill began to develop. The creationists, however, are at a loss to explain why, if birds did not descend from reptiles, these primitive birds had typical reptilian teeth which later disappeared. Henry Morris, unable to give any convincing scientific explanation for this, instead invokes the Deity:
"Most birds don't have teeth, but there is no reason why a Creator could not have created some birds with teeth . . . For some reason, those that were created with teeth have since become extinct." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 85)Gish, on the other hand, attempts to explain the reptilian characteristics of Archaeopteryx by simply denying that any exist:"Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like . . . When the cranium of the London specimen was removed and studied, it was shown to be birdlike, not reptilelike." (Gish, "As a Transitional Form, Archaeopteryx Won't Fly", ICR Impact, September 1989)As we have already seen, this is simply not true--the skeletons are so reptilian in character that two of them were actually mis-identified as reptiles for several decades, and study of the cranial structure has shown it to be much more reptilian than avian.
The offspring of pole-vaulters should be sprouting feathers any time now.