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.
This is from Dr. Sankar Chatterjee of the Univ. of Texas
"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. "
So is Archaeopteryx a transitional species? Apparently not by 75 million years. Of course Dr. Chatterjee may be a charlatan as well seeing as he admits to the difficulty of proving the evolution of birds.
"Although birds are one of the best-known groups of living vertebrates, their origin, evolution, and early adaptive radiation are poorly documented in the fossil record."
Fortunately you can fill in the gaps with some more of your delightful "Bruce the Air Grabbing Bi-ped" stories.
Regards,
Boier Plate