Archaeopteryx

[[File:Archaeopteryx_NT.jpg|thumb|right|165px|A horrifying ancient beast.]]{{evolution}}
'''''Archaeopteryx''''' was a winged, feathered, avian [[dinosaur]] (or in other words, a bird) that lived in the Late Jurassic.<ref>{{see-wp| Archaeopteryx}}</ref>

It is important to note that ''Archaeopteryx'' is not the ''earliest'' transition between [[reptile]] and [[bird]] (see [[List of transitional forms#Dinosaur to bird.5B15.5D|transition from dinosaur to bird]]).  Still, ''Archaeopteryx'' has become the best known, having been described in 1861, only a few years after the 1859 publication of ''[[Origin of the Species]]'' and subject to much controversy with suspicions of its being a hoax (accusations, which so far, have not stood up well).

== Creationist beliefs ==
In 1985, some non-creationists (but also [[Ultracrepidarianism|non-experts]]) argued that the fossil was actually a hoax, with feather impressions having been added to an existing reptile fossil. One of the accusers was [[Fred Hoyle]], an astronomer whose unfortunate misunderstandings of biology gave us [[Hoyle's fallacy]] and the [[directed panspermia]] hypothesis with which [[ID]] makes much hay. As tempting as it might be for them to once again argue from Hoyle's authority and call ''Archaeopteryx'' "another [[Piltdown man]]", only a few [[creationists]] do. (Among many difficulties with such a suggestion is that the discoverer was Richard Owen, a noted opponent of [[Darwin]], though not entirely against evolution.)

Instead, creationists like to call it "[[Baraminology|fully bird]]" and downplay the most noticeable reptilian features: claws and teeth. They say that ostriches have larger claws than ''Archaeopteryx'' in their wings, and believe that since many reptiles (such as some [[snake|snakes]]) do not have teeth, it makes the fact ''Archaeopteryx'' has teeth entirely pointless.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Answers in Genesis]</ref>

These arguments rely on a form of [[species essentialism]] as applied to classes such as "bird" and "reptile". Both of these are groups that can be well-defined in a broad sense but naturally involve small exceptions as a result of some facet being dropped (as with loss of teeth) or retained (as with presence of claws). Loss of a trait is actually reasonably understood by creationists, since they can just dismiss it as "[[devolution]]". Retention of an ancestral trait is harder to grasp (see [[vestigial structure]]).

Nature is not required to limit itself to our nice neat categories, and evolution even predicts a blending of these categories in the form of transitionals like ''Archaeopteryx.'' Even if we had no fossil record, the ostrich's claws would still serve as an excellent piece of evidence ''for'' their descent from reptiles, not as some kind of cosmic sign that the [[Plato#Plato's Theory of Forms|Platonic Ideal]] of birds is permitted to include wing claws.

(In addition, the possibility of traits persisting or convergently re-appearing along a particular branch of the tree means this argument can be repurposed to dispute ''any'' transitional. For example, the rare [https://www.google.com/images?q=spotted%20handfish spotted handfish] uses its limbs to literally walk on the bottom of its shallow habitat; from this, a creationist could say "Walking is a ''fish'' trait, so all fishapods are fully fish," without considering that a few steps from this argument and we may as well consider amphibians "fully fish" as well, as cladists do.)

Pointing to modern bird species such as the ostrich and hoatzin (which hatches with claws) is just a form of presentism. Hypothetically, they could have gone extinct long ago, in which case such features would be confined to fossil birds and no living ones. Would creationists still be happy to use them as justification for the birdiness of wing claws? Conversely, ''Archaeopteryx'' could have survived to the present (in fact, creationists do think it was contemporaneous with humans). Suppose a live ''Archaeopteryx'' had been discovered in a world where no living or fossil bird had been found with teeth or wing claws, other than in embryonic development. On what grounds would creationists call it "fully bird"?

[[Answers in Genesis]] like to claim that ''Archaeopteryx'' was just an ordinary bird and not a transitional form, which is an example of creationists [[moving the goalposts]] of what a "transitional form" is to satisfy their own agenda.<ref>"[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Archaeopteryx]" on AnswersinGenesis.org</ref><ref>"[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp Archaeopteryx is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link]" on AnswersinGenesis.org</ref>

=== Category confusion ===
A 2011 analysis found ''Archaeopteryx'' to have more in common with raptor dinosaurs than with birds, essentially making it "another feathered dinosaur" in retrospect. This was treated as some kind of blow to evolution by [[Uncommon Descent]].<ref>"[http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/remember-the-first-bird-archaeopteryx-forget-it-word-is-its-not-a-bird/ Remember the Icon of the First Bird, Archaeopteryx? Word is, it’s not a bird]" on UncommonDescent.com</ref> Perhaps the creationist author assumes that evolution actually ''requires'' species essentialism. Whatever the reason, such derision poses a considerable problem: creationists had always been adamant that it was 100% bird, now and forevermore, while biologists had basically adjusted from 60% bird to 40% bird, insofar as such measurement is even meaningful. ''Archaeopteryx'' is hard to classify because the classification is inherently fuzzy. (It's almost certainly not ancestral to modern birds, which is something else creationists ignorantly made a big deal about.)

The increasing preponderance of [[feathered dinosaurs]] may lead to creationist difficulties analogous to their troubles in agreeing on which hominids are fully ape and which ones fully human, with ''Archaeopteryx'' being the locus of the most disagreement due to the combination of its iconic "fully bird" status and the preponderance of evidence that it was even more reptilian than many other theropods. We can only hope.

== Coloration == 
Recent studies on fossil feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' have revealed the coloration of the feathers themselves, showing them to be shades of black and white. This is seen in many modern birds such as magpies and penguins. It may have helped in harnessing shade for various reasons. <ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130614-dinosaur-xray-bird-color-feather-archaeopteryx/</ref>

==Anatomical evidence==
*Teeth present in the adult stage.
*[[Dinosaur]]-shaped pelvis.
*Long tail.
*Not all fingers fused.
*Neck attaches to skull from the rear instead of from below.
*Metatarsals not fused.
*Gastralia (ventral ribs) present.
*Trunk vertebrae not fused.

==See also==
*[[Avian phylogeny and origins]]
*[[Feathered dinosaurs]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Transitional fossils]]

Categories: Dinosaurs, Evolution, Transitional fossils