By Michael Gryboski

Psychologists call it groupthink. This is when an entity devoid of dissenting opinion progressively deviates into extremism. Groupthink can lead to alienation, discrimination, and can even lead an ideology to pervert from its original intentions. All ideological, political, and academic entities should shy away from groupthink and take measures necessary to inhibit the practice. For the writer, the best method of removing groupthink is to use sources that are not likeminded. This can reduce bias and solidify a case that would have otherwise been mere partisan babble. In order to reach from without Creationist circles, this work shall cite and quote only evolutionist sources.

Like any major entity, once the basic fundamentals are established, expansion on the theory begins. Like a well-nourished tree, the theory grows branches that feed upon the nutrients provided and often grow to sizable proportions in their own right. Such is how the General Theory of Evolution operates. A case in point: from the roots of evolution we get the idea that the species change over time, with previous forms being removed via extinction. All creatures are connected via intricate evolutionary ancestries, and major species groups like dinosaurs and birds are connected. This dinosaur bird link is hailed as the best known example of species being connected through peer-reviewed science. However, as shall be testified to, this connection is a dubious one.

I. Origins of bird origins.

As with many issues surrounding the General Theory of Evolution, the proposal that the dinosaurs and modern birds are linked through the advancement of the species derives from the first generation of Darwinists. In this case, it was a contemporary of Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Dr. Paul Willis describes the traditional account:

”Thomas Huxley…was eating quail one evening while ruminating on a palaeontological puzzle poised by a strange bone back in the lab. He knew it was the lower leg bone (tibia) of a meat-eating dinosaur but smeared across the bottom of it was an unidentified extra bone. He happened to suck the flesh off the bottom of the quail leg and there, smeared across the bottom of the quail tibia, was the same enigmatic bone. Dealing with a more complete bird leg, Huxley realised that the osseous stranger was the anklebone (astragalus). More importantly, Huxley concluded that the form of the astragalus in both the dinosaur and the bird were so similar that they must be closely related.”¹

It was also during this time that one of the great finds of paleontology was discovered: Archaeopteryx. Although not the only fossil find to be used as an example of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, it is definitely the most widely known. Even as the dinosaur-bird link has ebbed and flowed in popularity in academia, Archaeopteryx has been used to deal with many issues in the General Theory of Evolution, including answering the common creationist lamentation that evolutionists cannot provide any examples of “missing links.”

From the 1990s onward, in large part because of research going back to the 1970s, the hypothesis that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs is widely accepted by paleontologists and evolutionists at large. Their best visible piece of evidence, the Archaeopteryx find, serves as a banner leading them into battle. Plenty of apologists for the General Theory of Evolution call upon Archaeopteryx as a testimony to both the abundance and the paucity of transitional fossils.

Evolutionary apologist Douglas J. Futuyma, when defending the concept of transitional fossils (a.k.a. missing links), cited the classic example: “Archaeopteryx, for example, is neither bird nor reptile: it is a reptile with one key new feature—feathers.”² Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan, who also defend the General Theory of Evolution, recently wrote the following: “These transitional fossils include the archaeopteryx, a crow-sized animal that had features of both reptiles and birds.”³

II. Early problems

Dinosaurs in general appear to adherently fascinate people. Be it the best-selling Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel The Lost World or the Jurassic Park movies, dinosaurs draw attention. When learning about the potentiality that dinosaurs still roam in our backyards, only now being covered in feathers and chirping all day long, scientists across the country (as well as the world) were captivated. Plenty of articles online talk of teachers informing their pupils that every Thanksgiving they are eating dinosaur meat.

So is Archaeopteryx the great find evolutionists have longed for, the one that shall silence the critics and topple the fierce opposition they still receive from society? Well, far from being the find that puts all matters to rest, Archaeopteryx is quite overrated. As with the now widely rejected Recapitulation Theory, Huxley’s 19th century theory faced immense opposition from the beginning. A notable opponent was a scientist named Gerhard Heilmann, who in 1916 published a devastating work entitled The Origin of Birds. Heilmann created the still existing counter-theory, which hypothesized that birds came from a pre-dinosaur reptilian species rather than dinosaurs themselves.⁴ His argument was the following:

”The small theropod fossils known at that time (e.g., the coelurosaurs) lacked clavicles, which are thought to have become fused to form the wishbone in birds. Since reptiles have clavicles, this would have meant that theropods lost their clavicles, and then clavicles reappeared in the reptiles leading to birds. To Heilmann, this was too large a discrepancy to support a theropod origin of birds.”⁵

Archaeopteryx, hailed as the great missing link discovered, could not be used to counter Heilmann. “In birds, including Archaeopteryx, the clavicles are fused to form a furcula, better known to friends of Colonel Sanders as a wishbone. All dinosaurs, it appeared, had lost their clavicles; hence, they could not be the direct ancestors of birds.”⁶ In other words, absence of evidence was evidence of absence. Huxley’s quail-based idea seemed finished as “Heilmann's arguments held sway for about the next 50 years in evolutionary biology.”⁷

This is an important point to make: Archaeopteryx did not overturn the findings of Heilmann. Evolutionary writers today will speak about the undeniable evidence Archaeopteryx creates for the connection between theropod dinosaurs and birds, yet fifty years of scientists did not see it that way. Indeed, when Heilmann’s book proposing the counter-theory was translated into English, it had been over sixty years since the alleged transitional fossil had been discovered. Further, when the dinosaur-bird link was resuscitated by J.H. Ostrom in the 1970s, a whole century had gone by with the scientific community deciding that Archaeopteryx was not a telling proof of avian descent from the dinosaurs.

Ostrom of Yale reversed the influence of Heilmann, whose argument was based on the mere absence of evidence, which can be an unstable opposing claim for any debate. “Yale paleontologist John Ostrom has recently revived the dinosaurian theory…At least two coelurosaurian dinosaurs had clavicles after all; they are no longer debarred as progenitors of birds.”⁸ The fundamental case Ostrom presented, which most of the scientific community would come to accept, involved research on the formerly nonissue Archaeopteryx.

“Using evidence from the five Archaeopteryx fossils then available, he systematically analyzed the parts of the skeleton, arguing that many of the features of this primitive bird were dinosaur-like. He went so far as to contend that if it weren’t for the feather imprints, an Archaeopteryx specimen could easily have been classified as a theropod dinosaur.”⁹

Other finds would follow in the 1990s, eventually shifting paleontologists away from Heilmann and towards Ostrom. Nowadays, as shown by the writings of apologists and the textbooks found at high school and collegiate levels, the dinosaur-bird link is considered proven if not totally vindicated, with Archaeopteryx as the centerpiece. As most science teachers go home for Thanksgiving, they carve up what they believe to be a little cousin of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

III. Modern Problems

By definition, transitional fossils are supposed to hold characteristics from two sets of species, the species they are evolutionarily departing from and the species they are becoming. Comparable to a Venn Diagram, a transitional fossil must hold attributes distinct to those two species. Archaeopteryx as the transitional fossil must have qualities that make it a cross between a dinosaur and a bird. Ostrom apparently proved these things back in the 1970s and by the 1990s, the scientific community finally caught up with him. However, as shall be seen, Archaeopteryx hardly works as an intermediary between dinosaurs and birds and that a better example of transition is found with Archaeoraptor.

Ultimately, Archaeopteryx and birds in general are not related to dinosaurs and do not descend from them in evolutionary progression. This is what notable bird researcher Dr. Alan Feduccia of UNC Chapel Hill would testify to. In a 1997 study done analyzing the embryological development of birds, turtles, and alligators, Feduccia and Dr. Ann C. Burke found that digit formation in birds corresponds to human embryological development but not digit development in reptiles or amphibians. The problem for dinosaur-bird link proponents is as follows:

“Such developmental evidence of digit identity conflicts with the theory that modern birds arose from dinosaurs as some paleontologists have claimed since the 1970s. Dinosaurs had ‘fingers’ corresponding to the first, second and third fingers on human hands, and as a result, it is almost impossible to envision how a bird wing could have evolved from a dinosaur hand.”¹⁰

Dr. Richard Hinchliffe of the University of Wales, when reviewing the study, had this to say: "For the time being, this important developmental evidence that birds have a 2-3-4 digital formula, unlike the dinosaur 1-2-3, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur-origin orthodoxy.”¹¹

Archaeopteryx does not stand alone. Other finds, many made during the 1990s, have come to give vindication to the dinosaur-bird link. Put in proper order, these other finds show a line of progression from the extinct ancestors to the modern descendents. But that very proper order is absent from the fossil record of bird evolution. Dr. Willis, one of the many supporters of the dinosaur-bird link, will admit that much:

“So structurally, the fossils are offering a pretty consistent picture that the Birds-Are-Dinosaurs hypothesis is correct. But there's a hitch. The closest dinosaurian relatives to the birds occur in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx. Unless Velociraptor and kin perfected time travel, there's no way they can be the ancestors of a bird that lived sixty million years earlier. Some recent finds suggest that bird-like dinosaurs did exist earlier than previously thought, but the fossils are scrappy and inconclusive. Given the improbability of fossilisation, it's quite possible that pre-Archaeopteryx dino-birds were simply not preserved.”¹³

This fact is echoed by zoologist John Ruben, "A point that too many people always have ignored, however, is that the most birdlike of the dinosaurs, such as bambiraptor and velociraptor, lived 70,000,000 years after the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx…So you have birds flying before the evolution of the first birdlike dinosaurs.”¹⁴

The speculation of Dr. Willis leads us to another: given the rarity of fossilization, is it possible that there were birds predating Archaeopteryx? It would not be the most absurd idea ever proposed in light of a poorly kept fossil record, but is it true? One find in the Former Soviet Republic of Kyrgyzstan may usurp the famous fossil: Longisquama insignis. This find predates Archaeopteryx by 75 million years. Paleontologist Terry Jones was one of the discoverers of this theory-breaking fossil. "We can identify certain structures in these fossils that you only find in feathers and just don't see anywhere else…So we're quite sure we're looking at the earliest feather. But beyond that, this animal looks like an ancestral bird even if you ignore the feathers. The teeth, pectoral structure, neck, and skull are just like those of birds."¹⁵

Longisquama insignis has plenty of bird like qualities, to the point where it would not be out of line to call it a bird. But it is not a dinosaur, even though its placing in the timeline of life involves it sharing the world with them. The denial of the dinosaur-bird link so professed by Heilmann, Feduccia, and others gains strength from the words of one lead researcher in this discovery:

“Feathers are a very complicated structure…The odds of them evolving first in Longisquama and then separately at some point later in dinosaurs or any other group of animals would have been astronomically small. However, given the feathers on Longisquama and about 75,000,000 more years, it would be a fairly easy developmental step for the feathers to grow at a different location, such as the forearms. In an evolutionary sense, it's not very far from this animal to a bird with flight."¹⁶

Archaeopteryx is only a bird, earlier finds show avian features in non-dinosaurian life, and early embryonic stages cast doubt on development connections between birds and reptiles. Fortunately, there is a find that aids the dinosaur-bird hypothesis, Archaeoraptor. Found in 1999 in Liaoning Province, China, Archaeoraptor was the perfect find for dinosaur-bird link proponents. “The Archaeoraptor fossil was introduced in 1999 and hailed as the missing evolutionary link between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds.”¹⁷

There is one problem with Archaeoraptor: it is a hoax. “[Archaeoraptor] was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer.”¹⁹ Despite this expedience in exposing the hoax, even today various websites will claim the find to be a telling proof of the avian-dinosaurian connection.

IV. Epilogue

Dr. Timothy Rowe from the University of Texas at Austin was one of the analyzers of Archaeoraptor. Working in conjunction with Chinese and Canadian scientists, he was able to chart the creatures used by the hoaxers to create this convenient find. Using Computed Tomography, Rowe and his colleagues were able to note that one creature used to create the hoax was an ancient bird, a find in and of itself. When interviewed by the BBC, he said “Now that we know which pieces really do go back together properly and which do not, we can see that there is a new species of extinct bird present in the forgery and that it definitely deserves to be studied and described.”²⁰

Note it was not a dinosaur or a theropod that Dr. Rowe wants to study, but a bird. Since the days of Darwin people have attempted to create trees of life, branches connecting the millions and millions of species inhabiting this celestial ball. Along the way, objectivism has taken a beating and all too often hoaxes have emerged. There are some similarities between dinosaurs and birds, but where does one draw the line as to similarities in general being proof of evolution? The hands of humans and paws of alligators bear more similarity than the hands of humans and the hooves of horses. Does that mean humans are more closely related to alligators? Not at all. So why should minute similarities between dinosaurs and birds be undeniable roof of their common descent in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary? Maybe some day people will not ask that question, but rather if minute similarities between ANY species constitutes evidence for evolution.

Sources:

1. Dr. Paul Willis, “Dinosaurs and Birds”, http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm, accessed on March 14th, AD 2008.

2. Futuyma, Douglas J., Science on Trial (Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1982) p.84.

3. Cameron M. Smith and Charles Sullivan, The Top 10 Myths About Evolution (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2007) p.129.

4. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc3dino.htm, accessed on March 14th, AD 2008.

5.Ibid.

6. Gould, Stephen Jay, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1980) pp.269-270.

7. http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/husband/avc3dino.htm, accessed on March 14th, AD 2008.

8. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb , p.271.

9. Campbell, Neil A.; Reece, Jane B.; Taylor, Martha R.; Simon, Eric J., Biology: Concepts & Connections(5th ed.), (New York: Benjamin Cummings) 2006, pp.296-297.

10. “Embryo Studies Show Dinosaurs Could Not Have Given Rise To Modern Birds”, University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill, October 27, 1997, located at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971027064254.htm, on September 24th, AD 2007.

11. Ibid.

12.Feduccia, Alan, Science 259 (1993): pp.790-793.

13. Willis, “Dinosaurs and Birds”, http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm, 03/14/2008.

14. “Challenging the dinosaur-bird link”, USA Today Magazine, Dec. 1st, AD 2001, located at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-81110791.html, on Sept. 24th, AD 2007.

15. Ibid.

16.Ibid.

17.Mayell, Hillary, “Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says” National Geographic News, November 20, 2002 accessed at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html on March 14th, AD 2008.

18. Briggs, Helen, “'Piltdown' bird fake explained”, BBC News, Thursday, 29 March, 2001, found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm on March 15th, AD 2008.

19. Mayell “Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html, 03/14/2008.

20. Briggs, “’Piltdown’ bird fake explained”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248079.stm, 03/15/2008.