The archaeopteryx is still even to this day one of those things that evolutions like to claim as evidence for evolution. Pictures of what artists suppose the bird/dinosaur would have looked like are shown in bright, appealing colors in science textbooks, with the words “missing link” printed boldly underneath. It is still taught to be one of the best pieces of evidence that evolution has to show. What exactly about the archaeopteryx gets evolutionists all hyped up, and could they possibly have a valid reason for using this fossil as evidence? Or could there be more to this here?
Part of the features of this almost complete fossilized skeleton of the archaeopteryx show those of a reptile. This is the first part that makes evolutionists excited. It has a long, bony tail, and clawed hands, and also teeth. All of these point to evidence of this being a dinosaur-like animal. But this isn’t half as exciting except for one thing: there are other parts to this fossil that appear to be characteristics of that of a bird! Along with the reptilian physical characteristics, the fossil also appears to have feathers. However at the same time, it seems to have scale-like skin! The fossil also appears to have wings!
So is this the transitional fossil that evolutionists have been looking for? Many seem to think so. And it may seem to be a very good argument. The animal – whatever it is – seems to cross right between dinosaur and bird. Some dinosaurs had wings, but they did not have feathers, scientists say. And birds did not have long, bony tails, hand-like claws, and they especially did not have teeth. So what else could this be, evolutionists say, except a dinosaur caught right in the middle of the process of evolving into a bird?
What are we really looking at here? Are evolutionists right? Creationists do not think so. First of all, this fossil can be classified as a bird. The feathers are fully developed, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the transition of scales to feathers. It has feathers that are identical to those of modern day birds. The bone structure of the archaeopteryx are the same as that of a bird. Also, other fossils of extinct birds in the fossil record have been found to have teeth. Why is the archaeopteryx a transitional fossil because it has teeth and these birds are not?
Evolutionists say that the skull was more reptilian than other fossils of birds they have found. But in reality there is no evidence for this. 54Also, fossils of birds have been found earlier in the fossil record. And not just fossils of birds, but all fossils are those of fully developed birds. So why is there a “transitional fossil” so much later in the record when this transition supposedly was supposed to be over?
So what does the evidence point to? It points to an extinct kind of bird that unique qualities. When evolutionists say that this is their best evidence, this sure doesn’t seem to be saying much. This is just another example of how we all – evolutions and creationists alike – come to the table of evidence with our biased opinions forefront in our mind. We must all try to look at the evidence as objectively as possible in hopes to learn the truth. In reality the claims that the archaeopteryx is evidence for evolution should be taken out of the textbooks, just as the evolution of the American horse was, the whale argument, and many others that over time have shown to be false arguments.
