Another Alleged Transitional Form: Archæopteryx

[Guest jasonparker]

Evolutionists pronounce the name of one single creature in response. This is the fossil of a bird called Archæopteryx, one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archæopteryx, the so-called ancestor of modern birds according to evolutionists, lived approximately 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some small dinosaurs, such as Velociraptors or Dromeosaurs, evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that branched off from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time.

 

SPECIAL LUNGS FOR BIRDS

 

The anatomy of birds is very different from that of reptiles, their supposed ancestors. Bird lungs function in a totally different way from those of land-dwelling animals. Land-dwelling animals breathe in and out from the same air vessel. In birds, while the air enters into the lung from the front, it goes out from the back. This distinct "design" is specially made for birds, which need great amounts of oxygen during flight. It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

 

 

 

 

However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

 

The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum (breastbone) in this creature was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The sternum is a bone found under the thorax to which the muscles required for flight are attached. In our day, this breastbone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats, a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

 

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil, which was found in 1992, caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently discovered fossil, the breastbone that was long assumed by evolutionists to be missing was discovered to have existed after all. This fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

 

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial, rectangular sternum, long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles.46

 

This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.

 

Moreover, the structure of the bird's feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence confirming that Archæopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from that of modern birds, and indicates that it could fly perfectly well. As the eminent paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers [Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird." 47

 

Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx's feathers was its warm-blooded metabolism. As was discussed above, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals whose body heat fluctuates with the temperature of their environment, rather than being homeostatically regulated. A very important function of the feathers on birds is the maintenance of a constant body temperature. The fact that Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to regulate its body heat, in contrast to dinosaurs......

 

the source: EVOLUTION DECEIT http://www.harunyahya.com/evolutiondeceit06.php

[swansont]

rebuttal

[Sorcerer]

Before I read the rebuttal I'll make a few points;

 

 

It is impossible for such a structure to evolve from the reptile lung.

Why? Is this assumed so because you assume that evolution is impossible, or are there other good reasons? Were the lungs of archaeopteryx preserved so you can provide proof of these claims..... basically this statement is lacking of evidence.

 

However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but an extinct species of bird, having some insignificant differences from modern birds.

 

Which latest studies? Even if it was a true flying "bird" why does this mean it isn't an ancestor of modern birds and how does this mean it couldn't be a descendant of dinosaurs?

 

Just because an earlier claim was invalidated doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong, just that part of it, as I said, just because archaepteryx could fly doesn't mean it isn't a trasitional form. Australopithicines could walk upright, this doesn't mean they are not a "transitional form".

 

What about the scaly neck and toothed beak, why hasn't the article even tried to explain these?? Could it be perhaps because it can't explain these away with weak half-assed arguments?

 

How do you know that dinosaurs were cold blooded?

[drz]

Your not holding your breath for a reply are you?

 

Usually once I read the word "evolutionist" I've read enough. Do people who actually study evolution call themselves "evolutionists"?

[Sorcerer]

lol, I tend to call myself human....... I think we evolved from creationists.

[Sayonara]

Your not holding your breath for a reply are you?

Hopefully.

 

 

Usually once I read the word "evolutionist" I've read enough. Do people who actually study evolution call themselves "evolutionists"?

No, they certainly do not.

[drz]

I didn't think so. I'm no evolution buff, I know enough about it to know it is the most senable explanation out there. But by no means would I go around calling myself an evolutionist, and I certainly didn't think the pro's would.

[Sorcerer]

Ahhhh found it......... pesudo science.

[LucidDreamer]

Yes, its unlikely that you will get a response. That was just a cut and paste job from a creationist that knows little of science that was impressed by how scientific the article sounded. But what do we know; we are only evolutionists deceived by Satan.

[Treadstone]

i think maybe if you took out all the bias in the article it wouldnt be so terribly written...all the "supposed"s just detract from what they are trying to say....however then you would actually have to read what they are saying and this it would be painfully obvious how clueless creation scientists are....

[Stumblebum]

Come on lets give our author some credit. He got the part of archaeopteryx being extinct correct. I'll go as far and say feathers also.

 

Ahhh....to be able to go back in time and witness the past