| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[Image:archaeopteryx.png|thumbnail|right|0px|Bird, or dinosaur?]] | | [[Image:archaeopteryx.png|thumbnail|right|0px|Bird, or dinosaur?]] |
| | | | |
| − | '''''Archaeopteryx''''' is an extinct [[bird]], known only from the [[fossil]] record.
| + | '''Archaeopteryx''' is a theoretical [[bird]] based on a few [[fossil]] fragments. This theoretical bird is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]], making it appear to be a so-called "transitional" form between reptiles and birds. |
| − | Ten specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens, have been found.
| + | |
| | + | There are two criticisms of the Archaeopteryx. One criticism is that the fossil fragments are fraudulent. Another criticism is that even if Archaeopteryx existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution. |
| | + | |
| | + | Only 7 specimens suggesting the existence of Archaeopteryx have been presented.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens</ref> The source of specimens seems unlikely: six came from Germany and one from England, where the highest prices could be obtained on auction from evolutionists, and none from anywhere else in the world. Two of those in Germany came from the same family, 16 years apart, who were amateur collectors. A third specimen is missing and has not been seen in years. Still more specimens lack much detail and were initially described as other species. Frauds in Germany and England in connection with evolution claims (e.g., [[Piltdown Man]]) were common. |
| | + | |
| | + | Preeminent [[British]] scientist [[Fred Hoyle|Sir Fred Hoyle]] declared the feather impressions on ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens to be a fake.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | The second criticism of the Archaeopteryx, that is not a transitional form even if it did exist, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all. In 1994, an article explained that the Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref> |
| | | | |
| | == Evidence for evolution? == | | == Evidence for evolution? == |
| Line 18: |
Line 25: |
| | Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. | | Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. |
| | In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" /> | | In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" /> |
| − |
| |
| − | == Fraud? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Fred Hoyle|Sir Fred Hoyle]] claimed that the feather impressions on ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens were faked, and some creationists have repeated this claim, but it has been rejected by most other evolutionists and creationists.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | == Bibliography == | | == Bibliography == |