Since its discovery in 1861, this icon of evolution which is known as “original bird” or “first bird” had become very controversial. Archaeopteryx was considered for many years to be the earliest and most primitive bird known. However, creation scientists disputed the fact that this fossil was actually a bird. Evolutionary scientists finally admitted to this fact at least for now. Shuffling the evolutionary tree is a common practice because it’s based on a story. As a result of this newly reclassification, some evolutionists in the media are concerned over this back peddling on their position.
In Nature, Archaeopteryx status of being a bird gets shot down…
“Archaeopteryx is widely accepted as being the most basal bird, and accordingly it is regarded as central to understanding avialan origins; however, recent discoveries of derived maniraptorans have weakened the avialan status of Archaeopteryx. Here we report a new Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China.”
“This find further demonstrates that many features formerly regarded as being diagnostic of Avialae, including long and robust forelimbs, actually characterize the more inclusive group Paraves (composed of the avialans and the deinonychosaurs). Notably, adding the new taxon into a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis shifts Archaeopteryx to the Deinonychosauria.”
In that same publication of Nature, Lawrence Witmer from Ohio University raises concern over the creationist response…
“Given this iconic role, Archaeopteryx has also been in the cross-hairs of creationists, and remains a lightning rod for political debates and legal proceedings about teaching evolution in schools,” Witmer remarked. “Of course, Xu and co-workers’ finding only deepens the impact of Archaeopteryx by highlighting the rich evolutionary nexus of which it is a part, but how the ever-clever creationist community will ‘spin’ it remains to be seen.”
His conclusion is very revealing…
“In truth, this chapter of the scientific story is just beginning. Just as Xiaotingia moved Archaeopteryx out of the birds, the next find could move it back in — or to somewhere else within this fuzzy tangled knot that makes up the origins of birds and bird-like dinosaurs. That said, during this sesquicentennial anniversary of Archaeopteryx, which is being honoured with exhibits and commemorative coins, the bitter irony may be that it may not have been the bird we’ve always thought it was. But Archaeopteryx will remain an icon of evolution, perhaps even more so now, providing compelling evidence that, as we should expect, evolutionary origins are rather messy affairs.“
This was a fossil that was supposed to demonstrate evolution in the fossil record, (says the BBC) indeed now you know why the reclassification is a “bitter irony” which was once used as a weapon against creationism. Alan Boyle from MSNBC uses the blind faith approach, “It may well be they’re going to suggest that we evolutionists don’t know what we’re doing…”
So they say evolution is “messy” but how does “messy” demostrate you know what you’re doing? How does “messy” data become science? How can “messy” data be advocated as a confirmation for a theory? What about a prediction of your theory that is going to be enormously difficult to figure out what’s going on, do you have a scientific theory or an ideology masquerading as a theory, immune from testable evidence?
Everyone who has been taught Darwinism, knows that evolution is supposed to represent a law of nature where it predicts a branching tree of life with species splitting and going their separate ways. The branches are inferred. Witmer wants to suggest to his readers that the complex traits already existed in the common ancestor before the groups diverged, but all that does is merely pushes the problem back into the ancestor, demanding multiple lucky mutations being selected in one species that generated all kinds of complex innovations at once. Could he be suggesting “hyper-evolution” like inflation being introduced to patch up the theory of the big bang?
And lastly, why are these “feathered dinosaurs” all coming from one man, Xing Xu? Why haven’t there been other scientists around the world over the last 150 years being able to find these alleged “feathered dinosaurs”? Surely there must be other sites if these creatures (from dino to bird) other than archaeopteryx actually existed! No wonder they are so fearful over a creationist response!