Since we are looking at the "junk" science of YE and since Bob has been heavily using the following site,
http://evolution-facts.org/3evlch23.htm , let's go ahead and beat him to the punch and show where its Archaeopteryx claims are incorrect.
"
The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds. Therefore, the scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a transitional species, but only a bird.
"
As shown above, they are lying. The title of the proceedings is even
The Beginning of the Birds. It has been shown that plenty of scientific information was presented at the conference to show the transitional nature of the creature.
"
Only the first fossilized skeleton (the "London specimen") and the second one (the "Berlin specimen" are well-enough defined to be usable."
Not true. For instance the Eichstatt Specimen has the best preserved head of all the specimens and is used in the determination of its reptilian traits.
They then quote Gish as saying "
Evolutionists can produce only a single creature—one single fossil creature—for which it is possible to produce even a semblance of an argument."
Not true. There are a huge number of creatures for which scientists make an excellent argument in favor of transitional status. I have discussed many of them in the past and we can dig into them if need be, but it would make this post too long. Of course, they are quoting Gish...
"
2 - How could scales turn into feathers? ... 6 - No intermediate feathers ever found. Transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever been found."
Again not true. The biochemical evidence for featehr evolution was presented by another poster above. I have posted several times on the intermediate feathers that have been found. From the downy feathers of sinosauropteryx to the tail feathers of Caudipteryx, to the fully feather covered microraptor.
"
3 - Bones like a bird. Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has."
Many of the theropods also had hollow, lightweight bones.
"
9 - No prior transitions. There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it to the reptile. It has fully-developed bird wing-bones and flight feathers."
Again, this has already been discussed above. I have given a fair number of creatures both more reptile like and more bird like including Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Yixianosaurus, Compsognathus, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Avimimus, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Confuciusornis, Neornithes, Changchengornis, Gobipteryx, and Alexornis.
"
10 - Bird-like in most respects. Archaeopteryx gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head."
And the lack of a beak, and the lack of fused vertebrae in the trunk, and the rear attachement of the neck to the skull, and the shape of the facets on the cervical vertebrae, and the long, non-fused tail, and many others.
"
12 - Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them."
Of course other fossil birds would have teeth. Do they think for some reason they would all just go away in one generation? Where are the extant birds with a mouth full of teeth?
That should be enough for now. If you would like to discuss any of their other claims, I'm game.
