Archaeopteryx is fully bird

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 References 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

Archaeopteryx was fully bird. It had fully formed wings and feathers.

Source

• Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., pp. 79-80.
• Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 85.

Responses

1. Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird. The archaeopterygid skeleton is unequivocal in demonstrating the transitional status of this animal and indeed, characters classically hailed as "avian," including the quintessence of birdness - feathers and furculae - are now known from throughout Theropoda. Characters of Archaeopteryx which are plesiomorphic comparative to all other Aves and most notably Ornithurae, include:
   
   
   1. Lack of any of the cranial components permitting streptostylic kinesis.
   2. Rhamphotheca absent.
   3. Occipital condyle and foramen magnum oriented caudally, not ventrally.
   4. Centra not heterocoelus.
   5. Pygostyle absent.
   6. Bicipital crests not hypertrophied.
   7. Pneumatic fossa of the proximal humerus absent
   8. Proximal groove for the insertion of the supracoracoideus on the humerus absent.
   9. Acrocoracoid incipient.
   10. Uncinate processes absent.
   11. Sternal ribs absent.
   12. Ulna lacks remigial pappilae.
   13. Distal tendinal pit on the ulna absent.
   14. Carpometacarpus absent.
   15. Metacarpal IV not strongly bowed.
   16. Manual digit IV not confluent with digit III.
   17. Posterolateral flange of the proximal phalanx of digit III absent.
   18. Ischium and ilium unfused.
   19. Femur lacks confluence of lesser and greater trochanters.
   20. Proximal pneumatic fossa of the femur absent.
   21. The tibia lacks a cranial cnemial crest.
   22. Tibiotarsus absent.
   23. Ectopterygoid present.
   24. Triosseal canal absent.

The absence of these characters in Archaeopteryx renders any argument to the effect that it is not a transitional form, bridging the gap between reptile and bird, dubious at best. Creationists must explain why the osteology of Archaeopteryx often exhibits the plesiomorphic archosaurian condition as opposed to the derived avian condition, precisely as predicted by evolutionary biology.

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Exclusion (reptile features are ignored)

External Links

• Nedin, Chris, 1999. All About Archaeopteryx. [1]

References

See References in Archaeopteryx.

Related claims

• There are gaps between reptile-bird
• Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds
• Protoavis disproves avian phylogenetics

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?
• Theory of Evolution

Acknowledgments

• JGK