This is a rebuttal to the web page called "TheTruth about Archaeopteryx" by Jon Scott, which proports to be a rebuttal of the "All About Archaeopteryx" FAQ in the t.o Archives. This reply was posted to the talk.origins newsgroup and mailed to Jon, and resulted in a modification of his original page. However, it is instructive to view Jon's original page, presented here, and the new page. The old page shows that Jon blindly accepted every anti-Archaeopteryx claim he could find from a number of anti-evolution sources, without bothering to check their veracity. As a result the original page was woeful. It is reproduced here to show a common trait among anti-evolutionists - the blind acceptance of any claim which supports their position, with no attempt made to verify them. It should also be noted that, although the worst of the errors have been removed in the new page, no attempt has been made to acknowledge the errors, no "oops, sorry I was wrong on that point". Another common anti-evolutionist trait.
Bold lines are from Jon Scott's original web page, lines in blue are from the original ArchaeopteryxFAQ, and normal lines are mine.
There appear to be two common threads running through Jon's page. One is that the differences seen betweenArchaeopteryx, fossil birds and modern birds can be explained as just variation within birds. Allied to this is the claim that some modern birds (Ratites) share a number morphological features withArchaeopteryx.
The suggestion that the differences betweenArchaeopteryx and modern birds represents simple within-group variation in not correct. Modern birds show a large number of derived morphological characters not possessed by Archaeopteryx. Morphologically,Archaeopteryx clearly appears more closely related to theropod dinosaurs that any other group and is grouped with birds over theropod dinosaurs due to the possession of only two main characters, presence of feathers, and presence of a fully reverted hallux (toe).
The relevant morphological variation can be represented graphically (if crudely) in Fig. 1:
Fig. 1
|
^ |
| |
| ___________________
T | | |
i | | MODERN BIRDS |
m | __ __ __ __ __| |
e | | |___________________|
| | FOSSIL |
| __| BIRDS | A = Archaeopteryx
| | A|__ __ __ __ __ __|
| |___|
|______________________________________________
"reptile" "bird"
<--- Morphology -->
As can be seen, the variation within birds shows a distinct trend. The more "reptile"-like morphologies occur in the earliest birds, with the typical 'modern' bird morphology restricted to later birds. If, as Jon suggests, that morphological variation is simply variation within birds, we would expect to see the various morphological groups (fossil birds, modern birds) evenly spread throughout the relevant time interval. If, however, birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, then we would expect to see the first birds to posses more "reptile"-like characters and the more derived, modern birds to have less "reptile"-like characters. This, in fact, is what we see. Thus the distribution of characters within birds supports their derivation from theropod dinosaur ancesters and does not support the claim that variation is simply 'within kind'.
Much is made of the morphological features of the Ratites (ostriches, kiwi's etc.), and superficially it may seem that these birds support the 'variation within kind' suggestion as Fig. 2 shows:
Fig. 2
_____________________________
| | |
|RATITES| MODERN BIRDS |
| | |
|______ |_____________________|
_________________________________________________
"reptile" "bird"
Morphology
Importantly however, other morphological characters possessed by Ratites clearly show that they are derived from a modern, flying bird morphology and thus the Ratites are actually neotonous on modern birds, with their more "reptile"-like characters due to the early termination of development, leaving them with some morphological characters similar toArchaeopteryx and some fossil birds. These characters are developmental and therefore provide further supporting evidence for a theropod dinosaur-bird link.
Despite Jon's claims to the contrary, with regard to all other morphological characters, Archaeopteryx either shares them with birds and, at least some, theropod dinosaurs, or with some theropod dinosaurs to the exclusion of other birds.
Also, despite Jon's claims to the contrary, the sequence of morphological characters seen in fossil and modern birds with regard to first appearence and developmental biology, fully support a ancester-descendant relationship between theropod dinosaurs and birds.
It is instuctive here to reiterate some of Jon's words from his page:
So, read the original FAQ. Read Jon's original page below, and this. Let's see who is "deluded and sunken so deeply into one point of view that even contrary evidence is interpreted until it may seem to be supportive." Lets see where the "truth" aboutArchaeopteryx lies.
There are several problems here. Archaeopteryx is not "little more than a featheredCompsognathus", but it does share far more characters with theropod dinosaurs than it does with birds. It does, however, possess two characters not shared with theropod dinosaurs and which classify it as a bird, namely feathers and a reverted hallux. No-one is denying that Archaeopteryx is a bird, but it is a very 'primitive' one. 'Primitive' in the sense that it possesses a number of 'reptilian' characters in common with inferred ancesters. Modern birds are derived and lack many of these characters.
The claim that Archaeopteryx "represents the only adequate transitional form between two taxonomic classes of animals" is false. The reptile to mammal transition is far better represented.
The bit about "kinds" is very garbled. Of course there must be a barrier between reptiles and birds, otherwise there cannot be different "kinds" (whatever than means). The whole point of literalist creationist attacks on Archaeopteryx is the maintain that there is no continuity and hence no relationship between reptiles and birds. The "evolutionist position", as stated, is a strawman. The transition does not have to show "a very gradualized progression". Neither evolution nor the fossil record is conducive to such a thing. Unfortunately for literalist creationism, Archaeopteryx and other fossil birds strongly support the origin and evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
The following list from Jon's original page is a compilation of a number of characters listed on the orginal ArchaeopteryxFAQ, followed by Jon's comments. The numbers have changed and in some cases the original statement has been altered. For example, in No. 1, the statement "Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered" comes from the original ArchaeopteryxFAQ, Jon's comments follow, and my rebuttal to those comments follow the short space bar.
This basically means there is no sharp point at the end of the bill.
Oh no it doesn't. Not horn-covered means NO BILL. The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering - a rhamphotheca, Archaeopteryx has no bill, period. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.
"As a class birds are strikingly uniform. The most obvious avian features are feathers and the possession of a horny bill." (Orr 1966, p. 113)
All modern birds have a bill, it is one of their diagnostic features, Archaeopteryx, and some other fossil birds, do not.
Most of today's birds have fused vertebrae, however, for balance and maneuverability, archaeopteryx has a much more flexible body with a "third-wing" (tail) set at the rear, and the front wings set forward from other birds.
In other words, Archaeopteryx does not look like modern birds, which is kind of the point. The tail is no "third wing" but, at best, a stabilising device.
Your own image (third one down in the "Archaeopteryx Specimens" section - actually the Berlin specimen) show that Archaeopteryx does curl backwards, just as in birds and identical to some theropod dinosaurs. The Eichstatt specimen also shows the same curled up feature:
"Both the Berlin and the Eichstatt specimens show that the neck was both long and flexible. The strongly arched cervical series in both specimens indicates a high degree of flexibility and its great length sharply delineates the neck from the trunk region." (Ostrom 1974, p. 136).
One of the images you present in your page actually refutes your claim here!
Most therapods, such as velociraptor and deinonychus have air-sacs in their bones. Consequently, many evolutionists state that this is one of many similarities with reptiles. So, this is one of those features that is only actually present depending on whether or not an evolutionist WANTS it to be present.
Lets see what I actually said:
Bones not pneumatic.
I.e. they do not have air-sacs. They do in birds. It should be pointed out
that the claim that the bones of Archae are not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933;
de Beer 1954), is based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not
exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and
the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the
pneumatic bones of modern birds. Also, pneumatic bones, especially the
vertebrae are found in a number of Jurassic dinosaurs (Witmer 1990, Brooks
1993)
So Archaeopteryx may have had pneumatic bones or it may not. The evidence is equivocal. However, air sacs appear to be present in only one reptile group - theropod dinosaurs.
Pneumatic bones found in Archaeopteryx
"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)
In other words, archaeopteryx's neck attaches to the cranium at the rear, instead of underneath closer to the jaw. However, as we see in dinosaurs and mammals, this is the type of variation which should exist in all large taxonomic groups, and does not constitute as a reptilian feature.
What? The statement said nothing about the neck attachment, but commented on
the brain shape, as the actual comment clearly shows:
"8) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated
behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are
stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the
mid-brain and compresses it downwards."
Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990). Note that the shape difference is ignored in favour of a comment on the neck attachment, which was not originally mentioned. However, lets look at the neck attachement:
"Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in Archaeopteryx - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds." (Ostrom 1975, p. 137).
The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, Archaeopteryx does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx didn't have any gastralia. it is generally assumed that since archaeopteryx was a "missing link", is must have also had a gastralia like reptiles. But it didn't, there is no fossil evidence to support this claim.
And from my FAQ:
22) Gastralia present.
Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall
of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds."
So, did it or didn't it ? Lets see what the experts say:
"In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen." (De Beer 1954, p. 18).
"The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved." (De Beer 1954, p. 19).
"The "new" specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia." (Ostrom 1970, p. 538).
"Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . " (Ostrom 1972, p. 291).
"The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, .." (Ostrom 1972, p. 291)
"Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of Archaeopteryx" (Ostrom 1975, p. 139-140).
Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhoffer 1974, fig. 7C)
Gastralia are clearly present.
Look a bit closer, it DOES have a saddle-shaped surface to it's vertebrae.
Here is what I said:
9) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are
different, they have a saddle-shaped surface.
And here's what De Beer says:
"The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (De Beer 1954, p. 17).
Archaeopteryx does not have saddle-shaped facets to the cervical vertebrae, but simple, disk-like ones.
Compare the human coccyx with that tail of a kangaroo. If this type of design variation occurs within mammals, why should it be considered evolutionary change if the same type of design variation occurs within birds?
Because "the same type of design variation" does not appear in birds. No modern bird has a tail anything like that in Archaeopteryx, who's tail, skeletally, is similar to theropod dinosaurs. Again, I said:
10) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the
pygostyle.
What a certain feature does in other groups is irrelevant since they are undergoing a separate evolutionary trend. The fact is that no bird has a tail like Archaeopteryx , but they possess a foreshortened structure called a pygostyle. There is no variation amongst modern birds with regard to a tail to the extent there is amongst mammals. The fact is that Archaeopteryx possessed a long tail, similar to dinosaurs, but quite unlike modern birds. Variation of this feature within a separate group is irrelevant.
What are considered derived characters for one group cannot be used to decide what are derived characters in another group. For instance, derived characters in snakes are (in order of appearence); reduction of limbs, loss of limbs and reduction from two to one lung, acquisition of fangs, acquisition of sensory pits. Thus from the point of view of snake evolution, humans, with their retention of limbs, retention of two lungs, absence of fangs and absence of sensory pits, are ancestral, or "primitive"! The absence of a tail is considered a derived character IN BIRDS, it is of little importance when deciding which characters are "advanced" IN OTHER GROUPS.
Not even close to true. Extinct birds often had teeth. Take Baptornis for example, the thing had a mouth full of teeth like a dinosaur!
But this is precisely the point. "Teeth are entirely lacking in modern birds". (Orr 1966. p. 113). The comment referred to modern birds. Some fossil birds andArchaeopteryx do have teeth. This is to be expected since fossil forms should possess ancestral characters. The absence of teeth is a character of all modern birds (see also below). Incidentally, Baptornis lacks teeth on the premaxilla.
What is meaningless is the comparison of characters across groups in this way. Again, what are considered derived characters for one group cannot be used to decide what are derived characters in another group. The absence of teeth is considered a derived character IN BIRDS, it is of little importance when deciding which characters are "advanced" IN OTHER GROUPS. No modern bird has teeth.
This is because archaeopteryx had a slightly more flexible rib cage and spinal column, even so, this may not necessarily be true. It is nearly impossible to tell with bird fossils if the bones had more joints or projections than shown because during the process of fossilization smooth surfaces can be damaged and made rough, while areas which would normally show if something had been broken off may easily be worn down and smoothed.
No, that will not work, because some of the specimens are mostly articulated, or at least have suffered very little post-mortem disturbance, and certainly little or no erosive activity.
The ribs either do or do not "connect" with the sternum. They do in the ostrich, as in all modern birds. They do not in Archaeopteryx, confortable or otherwise. The ribs of the ostrich do possess joints, and possess ucinate processes, a character of birds and not reptiles (or Archaeopteryx). They are smooth because the pneumatic character has been reduced in flightless birds. They could not be mistaken for reptile ribs let alone be "more reptile like than Archaeopteryx's".
And yet some aves (such as crows) show this feature. Isn't that interesting?
Actually crows and all other modern birds do not show this. The pelvis of the crow is the same as other birds and unlike Archaeopteryx. What IS interesting is that the bird pelvis is this:
"The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960, p. 258).
In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the "A"-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: <) (e.g. Romanoff 1960). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from "<" to "=". This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs.
For ease of reading, each one of archaeopteryx's "reptilian" characteristics will be listed, then the birds which share those characteristics.
1) Teeth
Hesperornis Baptornis Ichthyornis Sinornis Protoavis
Modern birds grow teeth as embryos yet resorb them later in growth, however some, such as geese, ducks, and other fish-eating birds replace the teeth with ridges along the inside of the bill. These ridges show several hook-like structures which to the naked eye are identical to teeth. This fits in to the "pre-programmed design" concept of creation biology yet doesn't quite fit the evolutionist model which would imply these birds would re-evolve the original teeth.
Ok, a few problems here.
Firstly, all the birds listed are fossil. No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth.
Secondly, the "teeth" are not "replaced" with ridges, since there is no connection between them, and the ridges also form in other areas of the bill.
Thirdly, the "hook-like structures which to the naked eye are identical to teeth", aren't. They are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.
Fourthly, this expression of tooth buds in the embryo is easily explained by an "evolutionist model" since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for "creation biology" (whatever that is) not evolution, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism?
Fifthly, some of the fossil birds you mention exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on the maxilla AND premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has HALF a beak AND teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.
So? That merely has to do with the size of the pelvic girdle, and it varies within birds anyway, so it is not written in stone. 23 is more than double 11 by the way, leaves a wide range for designs. It could cover 1 or 100 vertebrae, and assuming it could survive being so anatomically mutilated, it would still be a bird.
The point here is that Archaeopteryx has 6 vertebrae involved with the sacrum, just like theropod dinosaurs. Despite the wide range in the number of vertebrae invoved in the bird sacrum (11-23), NO modern bird has anywhere like the number in Archaeopteryx. The closest birds get is 11, which is almost twice that in Archaeopteryx. So, the variation in birds, large though it is, is completely separate from the number in Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx has almost half the number of vertebrae involved in the sacrum than ANY OTHER MODERN BIRD. The variation is telling because no modern bird even approaches the state in Archaeopteryx.
Many evolutionists state that archaeopteryx is the only bird, extant or extinct, in the fossil record or anywhere else, that has this characteristic, while most reptiles do. But guess what? This is typical of ostriches as well.
No, it isn't.
"The skeleton of the wing of Ratites is built on identically the same plane as that of the Carnates [flying birds]." (de Beer 1956, p. 65).
"The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, *but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds*, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds." (Alexander 1990, p. 435, emphasis added).
You may be confused over (or someone told you about) the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs. This was once used to suggest that the Ratites were 'primitive' and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.
"He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur." (Tucker 1938a, p. 334).
"Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance." (de Beer 1956, p. 65).
But this does appear in some birds and not always in reptiles.
It is large in theropod dinosaurs, and when present in birds is greatly reduced, where it is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak), hence my use of the word "large".
Wrong. The ostrich keeps the three-clawed hand into adulthood.
The best information I have is that the adult ostrich has two claws, not three. If you have any information that the adult ostrich has 3 claws please present it. But it would not be surprising if there were three (see below).
Unfortunately for anti-evolution literalist creationists, this feature is not evidence against evolution, but evidence supporting it. The Ratites in general, including the ostrich, are considered neotonous, i.e. their developmental processes are stopped at an earlier stage than in other modern birds, so that the adult form expresses characters normally seen only in the juvenile or embryo. For example, the ratio of the leg and feet to the rest of the body (most newly born birds have large legs and feet compared with the rest of the body), the presence of unfused sutures in the skull and in the bill of adult Ratites (They fuse quickly during the juvenile stage of other birds); the presence of claws in the juvenile and some adults - almost all birds exhibit claws to some extent, usually in the embryonic stage (e.g. Romanoff 1960), but they are lost by the time the bird hatches; the angle between the ilium and the pubis bones of the pelvis is intermediate between Archaeopteryx and modern birds, because the embryonic pelvis in modern birds starts out in a very similar configuration to Archaeopteryx and secondarily rotates as mentioned previously and shown below (see Romanoff 1960, p. 1010):
Chicken enbryo Angle ilium-pubis Adults with same angle 7.0 days 45 degrees Archaeopteryx 7.3 days 35 degrees Kiwi 8.0 days 30 degrees Ostrich
Thus as McGowan (1984) suggests, by retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg, the Ratites are showing us their reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, this is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds.
But look at the porportions of the arms and legs in humans and apes. If humans are actually great apes in themselves (as evolutionists claim) then why should archaeopteryx be considered a missing link?
For two reasons, one: in all birds *except Archaeopteryx* the fibula is reduced. Archaeopteryx has a condition seen in theropod dinosaurs and not in birds.
Secondly as stated above, comparing characters between groups with different evolutionary histories is invalid.
This feature is present in bird embryos.
Of course it is, and, as pointed out above, it is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.
(Jon then introduces a new character, which no-one has previously suggested, and which does not appear on the original FAQ).
17) A retractable, "Switch Blade" claw as in deinonychus and other "raptors".
There is no explanation for this feature because it simply isn't true. Archaeopteryx had a foot identical, IDENTICAL to today's song birds, such as crows, seagulls, humming birds, etc.
Of course it isn't true, you are the first person I have EVER heard claim that Archaeopteryx had a"switch-blade" claw! You have obviously confused Archaeopteryx with Rahona ostromi from the Late Cretaceous of northwestern Madagascar (Forster et al. 1998).
The study of bird and dinosaur metacarpals shows that Archaeopteryx was most closely related to theropod dinosaurs and not "true reptiles", since amongst 'reptiles', only maniraptoral theropod dinosaurs (and Archaeopteryx) have the distinctive semi-lunate carpal. The bird-like dromaeosaurs are found after Archaeopteryx because the fossil record of small vertebrates in the Late Jurassic is terrible. It has produced only a small number of fossils. We only haveArchaeopteryx because the specimens were preserved in an unusual environment. Also, there are some theropods which appear morphologically very similar toArchaeopteryx from the Late Jurassic, such asCoelurus fragilis which shares the same distinctive semi-lunate carpal bone which stands as the probably homologue and precursor to the trochlia carpalis of flying birds (Ostrom 1995).
1) Feathers.
All modern birds have feathers. Only birds have feathers. Although Sinosauropteryx has hair-like structures running along its back (which many evolutionists believe constitute feathers), not a single example is known of a dinosaur or reptile, or any animal other than an ave, having feathers.
Yes feathers are a defining character of birds (so far)
Most therapod dinosaurs also carry this characteristic, yet archaeopteryx's was opposable, and could grip branches and twigs, like living song birds.
And some fossil birds. Yes another avian character
All tetrapods have furculas, but archaeopteryx's forms a wishbone like birds.
But some theropod dinosaurs also have a wishbone (furcula) as stated in my FAQ, such asOviraptor andIngenia (Bryant & Russel 1993), and Allosaurus (Chure & Madsen 1996). Thus, the possession of a furcula is a character exclusive to a group which includes all birds (including Archaeopteryx) AND some theropod dinosaurs.
The metacarpal bones form a two-clawed hand like the hoatzin chick (as mentioned above), yet serves a dual purpose as a wing for flight.
The metacarpals form part of a three clawed hand (not two) in Archaeopteryx, and are free, not fused as in modern birds such as the hoatzin. The metacarpals ofArchaeopteryx are similar to other theropod dinosaurs and different from all modern birds. Thus, this is an avian characterArchaeopteryx does NOT have. That the forearm in Archaeopteryx forms a wing is not a valid comparison in this regard. What should be compared is the underlying skeletal structure. Here, Archaeopteryx is essentially the same as theropod dinosaurs and unlike any modern bird.
The tail of archaeopteryx is long, as in dinosaurs, yet the structure is more like that of birds and it was used in much the same way, or even as a "rudder" as in insects. This doesn't so much show an avian characteristic as it does disqualify the tail as a reptilian characteristic.
"The caudal (tail) vertebrae ofArchaeopteryx, as revealed most clearly in the Eichstatt specimen, are typical of long tailed reptiles (theropods included) both in their form and in the progressive change in length and morphology along the tail" (Ostrom 1976, p. 135).
Structurally the tail ofArchaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs and unlike any modern bird. It would have been heavy and probably not conducive to efficient flying, since all modern birds have done away with one.
Archaeopteryx's teeth are nearly identical to extinct birds such as ichthyornis, and the teeth which start to form in bird embryos.
Exactly, EXTINCT birds. It is also the same as many theropod dinosaurs. Thus, this feature is a link to theropod dinosaurs since no modern bird possesses teeth.
This characteristic is shared by only a few "reptiles". Most ornithosuchian dinos, such as sauropods, anve a 7-shped reversed pubis. Theropods with a reversed pubic bone have a \-shaped pubis.
The pelvis ofArchaeopteryx is almost identical to some theropod dinosaurs. The embryology of the bird shows that the modern bird pelvis is formed from anArchaeopteryx-like pelvis (see above).
This is found in birds only- not dinosaurs.
Agreed, and it isn't found inArchaeopteryx either (see above).
Not horn-covered like modern birds, still constitutes an avian characteristic. Enantiornithines (otherwise modern birds with three-clawed "hands" like archie)
No, as stated above, the beak IS the horn covered part. All modern and almost all fossil birds have a beak. Archaeopteryx does not.
Although a three clawed hand is usually attributed to therapod dinosaurs, therapod "hands" are made up of metacarpal digits 2,3, and 4. Furthermore, otherwise anatomically modern aves, such as the extinct, flightless, predatory birds of argentina have been known to have a three-clawed hand. Enantiornithines, which were flying, toothless birds, also had a three-clawed hand. It's the details that count, not how many designs exist. Archaeopteryx had a hand like a bird, not like a dinosaur. Juvenile ostriches also have a three-clawed "hand".
The difference between which digits make up the hand in theropod dinosaurs and birds is not the problem that some make out. In tetrapods, the primary growth axis of the hand is opposite the ulna. In tetrapods this appears to be digit IV. Thus, if theropod dinosaur have lost digit IV, they can't be ancestral to birds since birds have digit IV. However, in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, it is digit III which is opposite the ulna. Thus it may well be that digit III is the growth axis in theropods and birds, obviating the problem of the loss of digit IV.
I can find no record of phorusrhacid (giant South American) birds having a three clawed hand. Please supply a reference.
Enantiornithines do not appear to have three claws, but two. One of the features of the group is a reduced third digit, without a claw. The two most complete specimensSinornis santensis (Sereno & Rao 1992) and Eoalulavis hoyasi (Sanz et al. 1996), clearly show only two claws. It is indeed the details that count. Archaeopteryx had a hand like a theropod dinosaur. Some fossil birds possessed a hand similar to Archaeopteryx, but that is to be expected if birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. The fact that some fossil birds have a hand similar toArchaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs is evidence in support of an ancester-descendant relationship, since only fossil birds have this feature. The ostrich hand is fully fused as in other modern (and most fossil) birds, and is unlikeArchaeopteryx.
Feature Archaeopteryx? birds? Dinosaurs?
Teeth Yes Some Fossil Most
Long bony tail Yes No Most
Saddle-like curves
in vertebrae No Yes No
Air sacs in bones Yes Yes some theropods only
Pelvic girdle
covers 6 vertebrae Yes No Yes
Pelvic girdle
covers 11 or more
vertebrae No Yes No
Feathers Yes Yes No
Backward rotated
pubic bone No Yes No
A beak No Yes Some
Fused vertebrae No Yes No
Fused Metacarpals No Yes No
Metacarpals form
wings meaningless
So: [Archaeopteryx + modern bird] - Theropods = 1
[Archaeopteryx + modern bird + Theropods] = 2
[Archaeopteryx + Theropod] - modern bird = 9
The characters you chose clearly linkArchaeopteryx with theropods over birds. In fact,Archaeopteryx only has two characters which cannot be found in at least some theropod dinosaurs, namely feathers (for the moment) and a fully reverted hallux.
Anyone who reads the FAQ can see thatArchaeopteryx represents a morphological intermediate between theropod dinsaurs and birds.
The reptilian character of Archaeopteryx has LONG been noted. In 1867, Huxley described birds as being greatly modified reptiles (Newton 1884).
"[t]here can be no doubt that the Archaeopteryx, far though it may have diverged from the ancestral stock, has retained more of the reptile than any other form known to us." (Beddard 1898, p. 164)
"A comparison of the ancient reptiles with the long-tailed Archaeopteryx and other toothed birds shows that the birds and reptiles were once scarcely distinguishable, although now so very different. Birds have feathers, reptiles do not; but there is scarcely any other permanent difference." (Jordan & Kellogg 1916, p. 301)
"We may now stop talking about 'the missing link' between birds and reptiles. So much so is Archaeornis [the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx] this link that we may term it a warm-blooded reptile disguised as a bird." (Heilmann 1926, p.32).
"Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, is nearly one hundred per cent reptilian, and if it were not for the feathers no-one would hesitate to regard it as purely reptilian or even dinosaurian." (Lowe 1935, p. 408).
"There is in my opinion, nothing in the entire skeleton which could be pointed to as being definitely avian as opposed to dinosaurian." (Lowe 1935, p. 409).
"[T]he close relationship of reptiles and birds is generally accepted and is a matter of common knowledge and history." (Lowe 1935, p. 399).
"Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis then, though indubitably birds, as witnessed by their well developed and typical flight feathers, their limbs and indeed their whole skeletons, proclaim their reptilian ancestry in no uncertain fashion." (Tucker 1938a, p. 322-323).
"[t]hese first birds, of which but two or three specimens have been recovered, are known as Archaeopteryx and Archaeornis (see Fig. 80 and Pl. XIV) are so reptile-like that were it not for the preserved feathers it is doubtful whether they could be surely proved to be birds." (Lull 1940, p. 328).
It can, by using the following characters:
1) fewer than 26 caudals,
2) caudals with short prezygapophyses,
3) teeth with unserrated crowns and crown-base constrictions,
4) completely reverted hallux (Chiappe 1995).
But one can also construct a "broad class of aves which would NOT include" Archaeopteryx. One can by using the character: Carpometacarpus present.
"Slightly"?? see above.
and only 6 six sacral verterae
and trunk vertebrae not fused
and shape of shoulder joint
and angle between ilium and pubis
and ribs without joints and uncinate processes
and ribs free of sternum
and deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly
and gastralia present
and metatarsus bones unfused
and . . .
False analogy as shown above.
Experts in vertebrate morphology would seem to differ with you, see above.
[picture]
This poorly preserved specimen of Archaeopteryx Lithographica clearly shows a fan-like tail, which was used as a control surface during flight. Almost as if it had a "third-wing". This specimen also reveals a perching foot, like those of today's songbirds. This specimen lacked a pelvis, one wing, and a head. Aside from the fact that this bird was not a transitional form, it had been badly crushed during fossilization. As with other animals, we can tell with amazing accuracy (but not with complete accuracy) that this creature must have died while being fossilized, confirming the Noahic deluge model.
The specimen (the London Specimen), in fact does have a pelvis, both wings and part of the head. The tail is no "third wing" but, at best, a rudder. Unfortunately the "we can tell with amazing accuracy (but not with complete accuracy) that this creature must have died while being fossilized, confirming the Noahic deluge model." is false. The specimen was dead long before fossilisation. What's more, while it has been crushed, it is still remarkably intact AND it is buried in fine-grained mud, two factors which mitigate against burial in some world-wide flood. It provides no evidence to support a flood.
More on this below as the specimen has been included twice.
This wonderfully preserved specimen was once thought to be that of a "reptile" (actually a dinosaur, but that's not important to this find) called Compsognathus. Because of this unfortunate mistake, most evolutionists claim that archaeopteryx was a "reptile with feathers", and many creationists (wrongfully) believe that the feather impressions were hoaxed, and that archaeopteryx is nothing but a "lizard". It alludes me how anyone could come to this conclusion, this fossil illustrates Archaeopteryx's wings (as opposed to dinosaurs' "hands"), a perching foot, and a bird's hip ("backward" pubic bone). But unlike other archaeopteryx finds, this one did not (clearly) show the creature's beak, the head appears to be more round like that of reptiles and dinosaurs.
Ah, this is priceless! Here we have a specimen ofArchaeopteryx (actually the Eichstatt Specimen) which, for some time was misidentified as a theropod dinosaur, but that information is "unimportant to this find"!! How could a specimen ofArchaeopteryx be misidentified as a theropod dinosaur and yet not be "even remotely saurian"?!!. This misidentification shows just how close Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs were.
The hoax claims were based on the London and Berlin specimens not on this one.
As I have shown above, the "reptile with feathers" interpretation started in the 1890's and was well used by the early part of this century, well BEFORE the "mistake" was realised (see Beddard, Lull, Lowe, Heilmann & Jorden & Kellogg quotes above). The claim thatArchaeopteryx was considered a reptile with feathers because of this mistake is demonstrably false.
In 1876 this specimen was discovered (like the others) in a Germany rock quary in a limestone deposite. This supposedly confirmed the birds status as a reptile/bird intermediate because it was the first (and the only to date) specimen with teeth. However, as explained many times above, the existence of teeth has nothing to do with whether or not this creature was/wasn't a transitional form. As all other finds, this one had a wishbone, and a pointed, bird-like skull, with a well-defined (though tightly fused, unlike other finds) beak.
What? The only specimen (Berlin Specimen) with teeth? Rubbish.
"Only after extensive preparation it turned out that some skull elements (the snout and teeth) were present. . . . The four preserved premaxillary teeth are similar to the teeth of the London and Berlin specimens. (Wellnhoffer 1988, p. 1791).
The presence of teeth is crucial in showing thatArchaeopteryx was a morphological intermediate. The Berlin specimen does not have a beak. No speciman ofArchaeopteryx has a beak.
Not long after the discovery of "the feather", this (obviously) more complete specimen was found.It was almost imediately bought by the so- called "Natural History" Museum in London. The only major omission is the skull.
This is the counterpart to the first specimen pictured. I.e. it is also the London specimen. Compare Jon's description of the first specimen and this one.
The "So called "Natural History" Museum"? It IS the Natural History Museum.
Finally, a reiteration of Jon's own words,
It really is sad to see people that deluded and sunken so deeply into one point of view that even contrary evidence is interpreted until it may seem to be supportive. It's a lot like hammering a square peg into a round hole.
Indeed.
Alexander, R.M. (1990) Animals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 509pp.
Beddard, F. E. 1898. Structure and Function of Birds. Longmans, Green & Co., London. 548 pp
Bellairs, A.D'A. & Jenkin, C.R. (1960) The skeleton of birds. p. 241-300. In: Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. I, A.J. Marshal (ed.). Academic Press, New York.
Britt, B.B.; Makovicky, P.J.; Gauthier, J. & Bonde, N. (1998) Postcranial pneumatization in _Archaeopteryx_. Nature, 395: 374-376.
Bryant, H.N. & Russell, A.P. (1993) The occurrence of clavicles within Dinosauria: implications for the homology of the avian furcula and the utility of negative evidence. Jourrnal of Vertebrate PAleontology, 13: 171-184.
Chiappe, L.M. (1995) The first 85 million years of avian evolution. Nature, 378: 349-355. Chure, D.J. & Madsen, J.H. (1996) On the presence of furculae in some non-maniraptoran theropods. Journal of Vertebrate paleontology, 16: 573-577.
de Beer, G.A. (1954) Archaeopteryx lithographica. British Museum of Natural History, London.
de Beer, G.A. (1956) Evolution of the Ratites. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History): Zoology, 4: 57-70.
Forster, C.A., Sampson, S.D., Chiappe, L.M. & Krause, D.W. (1998) The theropod ancestry of birds: New evidence from the Late Cretaceous of Madagascar. Science, 279: 1915-1919.
Gingerich, P.D. (1975) Evolutionary significance of the mesozoic toothed birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 27: 23-34.
Heilmann, G. 1926. The Origin of Birds. Witherby, London. 208 pp.
Jordan, D. S. & Kellogg, V. L. 1916. Evolution and Animal Life. D. Appleton & Co., New York. 489 pp.
Lowe, P.R. 1935. On the relationships of the Struthiones to the dinosaurs and to the rest of the avian class, with special reference to the position of Archaeopteryx. Ibis, 13: 398-432.
Lull, R. S. 1940. Organic evolution. Macmillan, New York. 743 pp.
McGowan, C. 1984. In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong. Prometheus, Buffalo. 208pp.
Orr, R.T. (1966) Vertebrate Biology, 2nd ed. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. 483pp.
Ostrom, J.H. (1970) Archaeopteryx: Notice of a "new" specimen. Science, 170: 537-538.
Ostrom, J.H. (1995) Wing biometrics and the origin of bird flight. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologie und Palaeontologie, 195: 253-266.
Ostrom, J.H. (1972) Description of the Archaeopteryx specimen in the Teyler Museum, Haarlen. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie Van Wetenschappen, B, 75: 289-305.
Romanoff, A.L. (1960) The Avian Embryo. Macmillan, New York. 1304pp.
Sanz, J.L., Chiappe, L.M., Perez-Moreno, P. Buscalioni, A.D., Moratalla, J.J., Ortega, F. & Payata-Ariza, F.J. (1996) An Early Cretaceous bird from Spain and its implications for the evolution of avian flight. Nature, 382: 442-445.
Sereno, P.C. & Chenggang Rao (1992) Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the Lower Cretaceous of China. Science, 255: 845-848.
Tucker, B.W. (1938a) Functional evolutionary morphology: the origin of birds. p. 321-336. In: Evolution: Essays on Aspects of Evolutionary Biology, G.A. de Beer (ed.). Clarandon Press, Oxford.
Tucker, B.W. (1938b) Some observations on Dr. Lowe's theory of the relationship of the Struthoines to the dinosaurs and to other birds. Proceedings of the 8th International Ornithological Congress, Oxford. 1934: 222-224.
Wellnhofer, P. (1974) Das funfte skelettexemplar von Archaeopteryx. Palaeontographica A, 147: 169-216.
Wellnhofer, P. (1988a) A new specimen of Archaeopteryx. Science, 240: 1790-1792.