A bird called Archaeopteryx

We leave cladistics to experts. And IF we criticize it, we base in on a minimal understanding and knowledge of the subject. To achieve this, one has to go through at least the essentials of the subject. That is the LEAST we might expect for decent and sound debate. But creationists know nothing about anatomy, taxonomy and cladistics. That does not seem to hinder them making gross conclusions about the classification of fossil species and their import for evolution theory.

Let's take Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is classified by modern evolutionary biology as a bird (class Aves). The interesting part here is that A. had distinct reptilian traits, NOT FOUND in extant birds, which are:

• long, bony tail but no pygostyle like birds

• teeth, similar to those of small, meat-eating dinosaurs (not all teeth in all species look the same) – birds do not have teeth

• it had no bill but a beak with teeth

• neck attached to skull from the rear

• ribs without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum

• sacrum that occupies six vertebrae

• metacarpals free, wrist hand joint flexible

• claws on three unfused digits

• pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details

• bones of pelvis unfused

• etc. in total some 100 (count: HUNDRED) differences from birds but similar to reptilian traits.

But, as far as the palaeontological experts can tell, it most likely was able to fly.

And we have now a bunch of other species and specimen found which clearly show a gradual loss of those reptilian traits and also many that on the other hand are even more reptilian like than A. Archaeopteryx is just one of those and even sitting on a side branch.

This is how cladistics works.

The REAL question here is: WHAT is Archaeopteryx as a bird doing with all these distinct REPTILIAN TRAITS in the first place?

While science has progressed and we now know of many transitional species with painstakingly detailed, empirical work done on it, creationists are still moroning around with Archaeopteryx insisting on the bird status of the species. As if palaeontologists (AKA "evolutionists") didn't know - it were THEY who provided that information in the first place. Most palaeontologists consider A. to be a bird and have done so for decades by now. Parrot circuits – not interrupted by fresh input from empirical research and the parrots not being schooled to even the slightest level of scientific knowledge – can go on for decades.

Moreover, as I explained in my other post on the no longer missing links (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/3l2ef0/missing_links_not_missing_anymore), the exact taxonomic status of A. as a bird or a reptile is entirely IRRELEVANT. The only things, evolutionary spoken, relevant here are those many reptilian traits exhibited in what after all appears to be a (early) bird. If, on the other hand, it were found to be unable to fly, one could say we've got a dinosaur here. In that case the question still would be then: what the heck is a dinosaur doing with all kinds of distinct bird traits? There is no going around transitional specimen. They ARE transitional. As said in that post, evolution is about the transition of traits, not about the taxonomic classification.

When, after all, A. should be considered to be a bird, what the heck is it doing then with all those distinct reptilian traits - THAT is the question to be asked. Or, even more profoundly: BECAUSE of A. being a bird, its reptilian traits are a HALLMARK of evolution. Yet again, in their utter ignorance, creationists are ACTUALLY making a point for evolution theory.

Now google the Ferguson 2005 findings on chicken embryos developing teeth. From this study we now know that chickens have the full genetic blueprint for growing teeth. In chickens these genes lay dormant, their expression is shut off by past mutations. Ferguson managed to bring those genes to expression again. Apart from its possible practical use (regrowth of lost limbs), the question here is: WHY IN THE FIRST PLACE do birds like hens still have the full genetic blueprint for growing teeth?

We all know of the power of DNA to identify family relationships. If siblings lost family and meet them later again and want to be sure whether they are family, DNA can prove for that 99,9999% validly and decisively. DNA is even able to determine to a certain degree whether an unknown culprit in a crime case would be of any descent (Hispanic, Caucasian, Chinese etc.) by analyzing his or her DNA left on the crime scene.

But DNA is also useful to establish phylogenetic relationships (the “family” links between species). Guess what species we found genetically closest to birds (in this case they took a chicken)? Yes, crocodiles. And crocodiles are reptiles, like dinosaurs.

And guess what we find if we compare the remnants of collagen found in a Tyrannosaur specimen (the famous Mary Schweitzer research)? Yes, it matches of extant species living today the chicken’s most. Even closer than crocodiles (as predicted as well by evolution). Hence we know that birds evolved from reptiles. But we even know more precisely that they evolved from theropoda lineages (bipedal saurischian dinosaurs, among those Tyrannosaur) and not crocodiles (who establish an complete own superorder within the class of reptiles alongside dinosaurs). Gee, why does this match the earlier paleontological (fossil) findings so perfectly?

Only posts with substantial arguments based on empirical research (either by experiment or field observations according to established, scientific standards) and clear explicit referring to traceable scientific sources will be answered. The others will be discarded without further ado.