Why Archaeopteryx Isn’t as Special as Once Described

We further challenged the claim that its supposedly distinct characteristics, such as a flatter sternum and having possessed wing claws, were any help to evolutionists’ continued claims that it is still uniquely “reptilian” and will now deal with why its remaining special features aren’t that special at all as far as the story of evolution is concerned.

Teeth and Tails

You see, Archaeopteryx’s long bony tail and teeth are features that no living bird today exhibits. And this is often used to squash any objections to Archae’s supposedly special, evolutionary status. However, this only opens up a further can of worms in their argumentation which I’ll attempt to unpack.

Archaeopteryx’s long bony tail and teeth are features that no living bird today exhibits.

Firstly, in explanatory power, the story of evolution is a unique model of origins in that it declares that there are mechanisms in nature (namely genetic mutations guided by natural selection) that work together to somehow create brand-new forms, functions, and features in creatures that never existed before, which allows one kind of creature to evolve into another over long time periods.

For example, in their story, there was a time when dinosaurs existed, but wings and feathers didn’t. But then, certain dinosaurs evolved, gaining the genetic information for feathers and wings (among other things), eventually resulting in birds.

So the concept of incremental additions of functional genetic information, which somehow provided a survival benefit to a creature, resulting in the eventual transformation of one type of creature into another is essential to the story of evolution.

And this, of course, is what creationists point out that has never been observed, to which even evolutionists such as atheistic Professor Richard Dawkins have admitted.

We are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.1

However, the idea of the loss of genetic information is a shared one by both creationists and evolutionists. Creationists tout the corruption of the genome of all creatures as fitting the biblical account of the fall, where everything was corrupted, and sin and death were introduced into the creation.

In fact, observations of the corruption of genetic information are essential to the biblical creationist model in explaining where many of the bad things we see in our world today (such as harmful pathogens) came from.

Of course, evolutionists also contend that the loss of once functional information resulting in the deletion or suppression of certain traits fits their model as well, as they believe mutations would have removed such features over time.

However, this doesn’t actually affirm the idea of evolution directly, as the loss of forms, functions, and features without the addition of new ones (which has never been observed), would only result in eventual extinction, not evolution.

So the corruption of genetic information and/or the loss of features better supports the creation model than the evolutionary story.

As Rare as Hen’s Teeth?

Having said that, the fossil record demonstrates that Archaeopteryx definitely had teeth, and not only did Archae have them, but many other fossil birds did as well. And unlike the peg-like bumps in modern geese or penguins we might see today, these were true teeth containing enamel-capped tips, etc.

Now you may have heard of the old saying “as rare as hen’s teeth” being used to describe something so atypical or unlikely that it is almost surely not to occur or to be found (as modern chickens don’t have teeth).

And yet, the saying itself lends a clue to the fact that perhaps at some time in the past someone may have observed chickens with teeth. Otherwise, the saying makes less sense.

Interestingly, a popular level article,2 called “Hens’ Teeth Not So Rare After All” which reported on a science team based at the Universities of Manchester and Wisconsin, described how they have discovered chickens did indeed have teeth, as they have managed to induce teeth growth in them. One researcher was quoted saying, “We found we were able to induce teeth to grow in normal chickens by making changes to the expression of particular molecules.”

And an NPR article reporting on this phenomenon said,

A new study shows that chickens, which don’t have teeth, still have the genes that make them, and in special cases, those genes can be switched back on. Scientists now think that as animals evolve, they lose the ability to turn those genes on at the right time during development—not the genes themselves.3

And even further, a Science magazine article4 has now revealed research demonstrating that they believe all birds once had teeth and that “inactivating mutations” (their terminology) caused them to lose their ability to express themselves normally. Not only that, they believe these deleterious mutations have also affected several other animal kinds as well.

Edentulism, the absence of teeth, has evolved convergently among vertebrates, including birds, turtles, and several lineages of mammals.

But, as I pointed out, creatures losing features they once had is no help to the story of evolution, which is supposed to explain where brand-new features come from, not the absence of the features through information-corrupting mutations.

Now, of course, they attempt to explain this loss of genetic information for teeth through an evolutionary lens touting common ancestry of creatures and having happened over millions of years, etc.

However (whether birds did or didn’t all have teeth), the big picture of what they propose to have discovered in this paper was captured quite succinctly—in a statement from a pro-evolution (and anti-creationist) blogger who was commenting on the original article:

All birds contain the genes for making true teeth in their genomes!

From many studies of mammalian teeth we know there are at least six genes involved in constructing the dentin and enamel of teeth. All six of those genes are found in modern birds.

But if they have all these genes for making teeth, why don’t they have teeth? It is very simple, although they all have the genes, those genes all have serious errors in their code or in some cases large pieces of the genes are missing. These are programs for making enamel and dentin that are not used by the birds because they are too messed up to work.5

Exactly! That is what creationists have been saying, mutations tend to break things, not improve them. So, if all this research proves to be correct, it will only end up supporting the biblical creation model. It does nothing to demonstrate evolution whatsoever!

A degenerating genome fits with the biblical model of a once-very-good world having degenerated over time.

A degenerating genome fits with the biblical model of a once-very-good world having degenerated over time, and this idea of corrupted genetics accounting for certain features can be found and acknowledged as the explanation for various traits we observe in certain creatures today. Another example found in birds shows, “The ostrich-tribe is peculiarly interesting, owing to the fact that their wings present a really wonderful series of degenerating stages.”6

So whether God originally made some birds with teeth that are now extinct or perhaps many or even all birds once had teeth (and their genomes have simply deteriorated to the point they no longer express them), Archaeopteryx having had teeth is certainly no “hands down” argument for the story of evolution.

Heads or Tails?

All of this may give us further insight into how to make heads or tails of the other big evolutionary evidence Archaeopteryx is known for: its supposed “lizard-like” tail.

You see, what modern evolutionists are also claiming is that (similar to the last argument where they claim all birds used to have teeth but have lost the ability to express them) they believe all birds once had longer tails than they do now but have a reduced number of vertebrae currently due to mutations as well.

Birds today have shorter tails with a fusion of the final few vertebrae at the end of the spinal column called a pygostyle.

And as one research paper described:

A particularly critical event in avian evolution was the transition from long- to short-tailed birds. Primitive bird tails underwent significant alteration, most notably reduction of the number of caudal vertebrae and fusion of the distal caudal vertebrae into an ossified pygostyle. These changes, among others, occurred over a very short evolutionary interval. . . . An open question is whether the relatively sudden appearance of short-tailed birds in the fossil record could be accounted for, at least in part, by the pleiotropic effects generated by a relatively small number of mutational events.7

Now, although birds such as Archae had long tails, according to evolutionists, other birds that lived alongside them already had short tails (with pygostyles).

Archaeopteryx, sported long ancestral tails and a lack of a distal pygostyle. Interestingly, they coexisted with pygostylian birds.8

So obviously, if there were birds living alongside Archaeopteryx that already had short tails, then Archae wasn’t an evolutionary precursor to short-tailed birds.

And further confusion (especially concerning the Archaeopteryx specimens) arises when one considers modern research into the fact that modern birds’ tails tend to fuse, ossify, and develop their pygostyles after they reach maturation,9 a trait some evolutionary scientists believe took place in fossil birds as well.

If the Archaeopteryx specimens that have been found are all juveniles as reported, then their tails may have looked quite different when they were mature adults.

So again, whether (1) God created birds with a variety of long and short tails (and now the long-tailed ones have gone extinct first); or (2) there is some confusion in what we see in the fossil record due to varying maturation rates in the specimens we examine; or (3) God created all birds with long tails which then degenerated over time, it doesn’t really matter.

The fact that evolutionists admit there were true birds with both long and short tails shows that a longer tail length is not a more “unique to reptilian creatures” trait than having teeth is. And the fact that some argue the differences are due to degenerative mutations that cause a fusion and a lesser number of vertebrae (which they already possessed) doesn’t help their case for evolution at all.

Disposable Heroes

So just like so many other so-called proofs of the story of evolution, Archaeopteryx’s “glow” has faded considerably. And yet, for many of those like me who grew up going to state-run schools and having evolutionary talking points drilled into my skull as if they were irrefutable, cold, hard facts of science that any thinking person couldn’t possibly disbelieve, Archaeopteryx would likely still be considered proof of evolution in their minds. Why?

Well, most people aren’t involved in scientific study. They’ve got bills to pay, kids to raise, and lives to live. They just remember the big picture, takeaway ideas from their schooling and rarely go back to reconsider whether what they were told back then is still “true” anymore.

And their news feeds continue to spoon-feed them brand-new supposed evolutionary evidence on a daily basis, so their perception is that the mound of evidence for the story of evolution just keeps getting bigger and bigger all the time, little realizing that most of what they were taught earlier has been (metaphorically) dead and buried long ago.

That’s Just the Way Science Works!

However, a common defense I’ve heard by evolutionists time and time again when confronted with a now debunked, former proof of evolution is the weasel tactic of declaring, “Well, that’s just how science works!”

But wait a second, is that legitimate? Are we really just supposed to let that slide? Should we just let an entire community of experts declare things as true and then just keep letting them off the hook once they get debunked?

How many times should we be expected to swallow these claims as fact-based proofs, after the boy has cried wolf over and over and over again, and we haven’t even seen a metaphorical paw print yet? Especially when these claims are often initially stuffed into the face of Bible believers as so-called proofs that the Bible isn’t true and/or that science has proven God doesn’t exist.

It seems like an extremely convenient wild card to be able to play whenever your supposed proofs get demolished.

Hey, Neanderthals weren’t ape-men after all! “Well, that’s just how science works!” Haeckel’s embryo drawings have been proven to be forgeries. Evolutionists have known it for over 140 years, and they are still in textbooks. “Well, that’s just how science works!” Piltdown man turned out to be a complete fake after 40 years of promotion as proof of evolution? “Ya, well, that’s just how science works!”

Even though it was taught for years as one of the best examples in textbooks—peppered Moths aren’t actually a demonstration of evolution. “Yes, but you need to understand, that’s just how science works!” The “less than 2% difference between human and chimp DNA” claim turns out to be false. “Well, yes, but that’s just how science works!”

Evolution Isn’t Science

You see, evolution isn’t science in the way most people understand it. No one ever says things like “Science has proven water boils at 100^° Celsius (at sea level), but now it doesn’t. Science has proven that gravity is a fundamental force that exists and attracts objects toward one another, but not anymore. Science has proven that helium gas is lighter than oxygen and makes your voice sound funny if you inhale it, but now it doesn’t.”

No, science has shown all those things to be true because you can set up an experiment in a laboratory and conduct it over and over again, and under the same circumstances, you will get the same results.

But who, for example, can set up an experiment in a lab showing apelike creatures turning into people? The fact is you can’t! If you believe that once happened somewhere in the unseen past, you believe it on faith, not observational science.

Your faith is likely in a series of diagrams or an exhibit at a museum showing a series of skulls with an evolutionary explanation of someone saying, “We think this one turned into that one next to it, and we believe that one turned into the next one!”

But just like Archaeopteryx used to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds and now it isn’t, what they are doing is showing you facts and then telling a story about them that supposedly happened, but no one has observed it, and it can’t be repeated.

Truth Never Changes

Could there be a better explanation from someone who was there, is trustworthy, and doesn’t change? Yes! Just pick up your Bible and read it.

Unlike other legends, leaders, and learned men’s fallible ideas that eventually fall into obscurity, God, our creator, has given us his unchanging Word, and we can trust it from the very first verse!

All we have ever observed is exactly what the Genesis creation account emphasizes 10 times! God created creatures to reproduce according to their kinds. Dogs reproduce and make more dogs. Cats make cats, and birds make birds. Sure, there’s variation, but that’s not evolution. All we see is a reshuffling of the incredible amount of genetic information God front-loaded into creatures which gives us the diversity in nature we see today.

So, remember, as you rethink many of those so-called proofs of evolution you may have been taught—unlike other legends, leaders, and learned men’s fallible ideas that eventually fall into obscurity, God, our creator, has given us his unchanging Word, and we can trust it from the very first verse!

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35