The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/arch_3.arj/ARCH-3.TXT

Text File | 1991-02-14 | 8KB | 137 lines

                         Archaeopteryx part 3

     Other quotes from people concerning the Archaeotperyx:

"Evolution and Christian Faith" by Dr. Bolton Davidheiser Ph.D. Zoology
Johns Hopkins Univeristy.   (Altho this book has an original  copyright
of  1969 it is presently in its  eleventh printing and  is  copyrighted
1986).

     The derivation of birds from reptiles seems to be one of the  most
thoroughly accepted sequences in evolution.  Thomas Henry Huxley called
birds  glorified  reptiles,  and  this  witicism  is  still  frequently
encountered when the evolution of birds is discussed.   It is  commonly
stated that if the remains of Archaeopteryx ,"the earliest known bird",
had been found without feathers,  it would have been reconstructed as a
bipedal reptile...

     ...Among living creatures birds,  and only birds,  have  feathers.
Thus  a  feather  defines a  bird.   This  definition  is  extrapolated
backward into the past,  and Archaeopteryx is called a bird.   Altho' a
great  many othe anatomical characteristics,  including such things  as
eyes, hooves, and excretory tubes, are believed to evolve separately in
different evolutionary lines, it seems that very few evolutionists have
even  considered the possibility of feathers having evolved  more  than
once.    The  possibility  of  feathers  having  been  created  is  not
considered at all,  and they are usually said to have evolved from  the
scales of reptiles.

     Archaeopteryx  had fully developed wings.   Nothing has ever  been
found  evolving from a reptile with partially developed  wings.   Since
the  Archaeopteryx  has some reptilian characteristics and  some  avian
characteristics it is considered to be a link between the reptiles  and
birds.

   But  this does not necessarily mean that it does  connect  the
reptiles  with  the birds.   As previously mentioned,  a  fossil  named
Seymouria    has    some   amphibian-like   and    some    reptile-like
characteristics.   It  seems  to  make a good  connection  between  the
amphibians and reptiles, but G.F. Kerkut points out that it cannot be a
connecting  link because it lived at the wrong time.   If a  "suitable"
fossil cannot be a connecting link because it lived at the wrong  time,
it is obvious that a "suitable" fossil is not necessarily a  connecting
link if it happens to live at the "right" time...

     ...Except for the frequently repeated statement that birds evolved
from reptiles, the evolution of birds is by no means clear in the minds
of  evolutionists.   J.  Arthur Thomson of the University  of  Aberdeen
said,  "Our frankness in admitting difficulties and relative  ignorance
in  regard  to  the variations and selections  that  led  from  certain
dinosaurs  to  birds  cannot  be used by  any  fairminded  inquirer  as
an  argument against the idea of evolution.   For hoe else could  birds
have arisen?"

     W.E. Swinton of the British Museum says, "With some imagination we
can  link  the Archaeopteryx with the forms that  came  later,  but  it
requires much speculation to see the origin of even the power of flight
this first known bird displays...None the less,  nearly a century after
the  publication  of  that  monumental work  [Darwin's  Origin  of  the
Species], there are still monumental problems that remain to be settled
about the succession of life.  This is especially true of the birds."

                              ***
Concerning  the  use  of  purely skeletal  remains  to  show  evolutionary
relationships:

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Dr. Michael Denton:

     pp177-178   To  demonstrate that the great divisions of  nature  were
really  bridged by transitional forms in the past,  it is  not  sufficient
find  in  the  fossil record one or two types  of  organisms  of  doubtful
affinity  which  might  be  placed on skeletal  grounds  in  a  relatively
intermediate  position between other groups.   The systematic  status  and
biological  affinity  of  a  fossil organism  is  far  more  difficult  to
establish  than  in  the  case  of the  living  form,  and  can  never  be
established with any degree of certainty.

  To begin with, ninety per cent of the biology
of and organism resides in its  soft  anatomy,  which  is
inaccessible in a fossil.    Supposing,  for example,  all the  marsupials
were extinct and the whole group was known only by skeletal remains- would
anyone guess that their reproductive biology was so utterly different from
that of placental mammals and in some wayseven more complex?

     Modern  birds differ greatly from reptiles in many physiological  and
anatonomical characteristics,  particularly, for example, in their central
nervous,   cardiovascular   and  respiratory   systems...   but,   because
information  about  the  soft biology of a fossil  form  is  difficult  to
obtain from its skeletal remains,  to what extent Archaeopteryx  was avian
in its major organ systems will always be largely a matter of conjecture.

     One  aspect  of  an organism's soft biology which  can  be  sometimes
studied  in a fossil is the gross morphology of the brain.   This  can  be
done  by  preparing a cranial endocast of the intracranial cavity  in  the
skull  which  reveals the gross shape and outline of the  brain.   On  the
evidence  available from study of the cranial endocast of Archaeopteryx  ,
it  would  seem  that its brain was essentially  avian  in  all  important
repects, exhibiting typical avian cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum (the
part  of the brain involved in balance and the coordination of fine  motor
activities),  a  part of the brain proportionally larger in birds than  in
any  other  class  of  vertebrates  and  generally  considered  to  be  an
adaptation  necessary  for  the  control  of  the  highly  complex   motor
activities involved in powered flight.   The possession of an  essentially
avian  central nervous system lends furthur support to the idea  based  on
the  basically  modern  form  of  its  flight  feathers  and  wing,   that
Archaeopteryx  was as capable of powered flight as a typical modern  bird.

If Archaeopteryx was indeed capable of powered flight,  might it not  also
have  possessed,  of  necessity,  a fully  avian  heart,  circulatory  and
respiratory  system to supply the vastly increased demand for oxygen  that
occurs during powered flight?   In other words,  might it not have been as
avian  as  any other bird in all important  anatomical  and  physiological
characteristics?

     Then there is the problem of convergence.  Nature abounds in examples
of   convergence:   the  similarity  in  the  overall  shape  of   whales,
ichthyosaurs  and  fishes;  the similarity in the bone  structure  of  the
flippers of the whale and an icthyosaur;  the similarity of the  forelimbs
of a mole and those of the insect,  the molecricket;  the great similarity
in  the design of the eye in vertebrates and cephalopods and the  profound
parallelism  between the cochlea in birds and mammals.   In all the  above
cases  the  similarities,  although  very striking,  DO  NOT  IMPLY  CLOSE
BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP.[authors emphasis, not mine- G.F.] pp 194-5.

  It is possible to allude to a number of species  and
groups  such as Archaeopteryx,  or the  rhipidistian  fish,  which
appear  to  some  extent  intermediate.   But  even  if  such  were
intermediate to some degree, there is no evidence that they are any
more  intermediate  than  groups such as  the  living  lungfish  or
monotremes  which,  as  we  have seen,  are  not  only  tremendously
isolated  from  their nearest cousins,  but which  have  individual
organ  systems  that  are not strictly  transitional  at  all.   As
evidence  for  the  existence of natural links  between  the  great
divisions  of nature,  they are only convincing to someone  already
convinced of the reality of organic evolution.