The Claim That Archaeopteryx is the Ancestor Of Birds is A Deception

The fossil bird discovered in Germany in 1860 and given the name Archaeopteryx harbored certain characteristics unlike those of today’s birds. Darwinists used the teeth in its jaw, claws on its wings and long tail as tools for speculation and the bird was hastily compared to reptiles and heralded, in the absence of any scientific foundation, as a reptile-bird transitional form.

The fossil bird discovered in Germany in 1860 and given the name Archaeopteryx harbored certain characteristics unlike  those of today’s birds. Darwinists used the teeth in its jaw, claws on its wings and long tail as tools for speculation and the bird was hastily compared to reptiles and heralded, in the absence of any scientific foundation, as a reptile-bird transitional form. 

But this claim was a terrible deception.

Soon after Darwinists had mythologized Archaeopteryx as a false transitional form, the fossil bones were examined in detail, and it emerged that this life form was not in fact a “primitive bird” exhibiting an imaginary passage from reptiles to birds, that its skeleton and feather structure were actually ideally suited to flight, and that the features compared to those of reptiles were actually to be found in birds that had lived in the past and even in some that were still alive today. The pro-Darwinist journal Science openly stated this fact:

Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in a modern sense, a bird.” ¹

Archaeopteryx is a mosaic life form containing characteristics from different species. Mosaic forms interest scientists with their complex structures and are described as living things harboring features belonging to various species. The deception that Darwinists perpetrated regarding Archaeopteryx stems from the fact the fossil belongs to a mosaic form. The fact is, however, that like all the life forms in existence today, mosaic organisms are complex examples of Creation. The French biophysicist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy makes this admission on the subject:

We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown. ²

Many Darwinist circles have actually made that admission. Two of the 20th century’s best known Darwinists, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who were responsible for the punctuated evolution deception, also agree that Archaeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form.³ Jonathan Wells admits the fact that the fossil does not constitute evidence for evolution and that scientific circles have agreed this in the words “The world’s most beautiful fossil, the specimen Ernst Mayr called ‘the almost perfect link between reptiles and birds,’ has been quietly  shelved, and the search for missing links continues as though Archaeopteryx had never been found.” ⁴ But the interesting thing is that although Darwinists scientists have made that confession, efforts are still made to depict the Archaeopteryx fossil as a transitional form in Darwinist publications.  Jonathan Wells sets out the position:

Some biology textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as the classic example of missing link.  Mader’s 1998 Biology calls it “a transitional link between reptiles and birds,” and William Schraer and Herbert Stolte’s 1999 Biology: The Study of Life tells students that “many scientists believe it represents an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds. ⁵

There can be no doubt that this stems from a desire to persist in this huge fraud. Because Darwinists are unable to abandon their theories in the absence of any transitional forms, they instead try to produce false ones. That explains the desperate and fraudulent attempts to keep Archaeopteryx on the agenda.


______________________________________

1 Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don"t Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 19
2 Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don"t Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 22
3 Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don"t Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 22
4 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc., p. 135
5 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc., p. 134