Since I’ve been asked, I’m posting another of my answers to the 10 unanswerable questions for evolutionists in Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution.
Question 5: Archaeopteryx.
Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
What does Archaeopteryx have to be to qualify as a “link” (not a missing link, because it isn’t missing)? Wells apparently (he never really says) requires an insensible gradation of ancestors and descendants leading from an unquestioned dinosaur to an unquestioned bird, with Archaeopteryx in the middle. While that would be nice, it’s hardly necessary — and considering the quality of the fossil record, that’s lucky.
How likely are we to find direct ancestors of living species in the fossil record? That depends on the quality of the fossil record. If we have found most of the extinct species that ever lived, our chances are good; on the other hand, if our knowledge is spotty, our chances are bad. We can judge the quality of the dinosaur fossil record based on the species we have found so far. Half of all known dinosaur genera are known only from a single specimen, which suggests that there are many more genera for which not even that single specimen has yet been found. Moreover, many of the genera with multiple specimens are known only from a single time and place. We have seven specimens of Archaeopteryx, all from a single limestone quarry in Germany. Archaeopteryx is the only known Jurassic bird. How likely is it that the single Jurassic bird we happen to have found is the ancestor of all subsequent birds? Given the small sample we have, we are unlikely to have found the ancestors for most dinosaur groups, including birds. Fortunately, we often can find fossils that are not too far removed in time and appearance from those ancestors. Archaeopteryx is one such fossil. It probably isn’t the ancestor of birds. (Distinguishing actual ancestors from cousins of the ancestors is itself an unsolved problem.) But it does represent a key transitional stage between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds. It has some features of theropods, some of birds, and others that are in between. Wells offers no explanation for the transitional nature of Archaeopteryx. We have other fossils for both more primitive and more advanced transitional stages. Some of the more primitive transitional stages — Velociraptor, for example — lived later than Archaeopteryx. Such are the vagaries of preservation. Nobody claims that ancestors appeared after their descendants, only that we have sampled a big family of cousins and siblings at random points through time, some of whom (like Velociraptor) resemble their common ancestor more closely than others (like Archaeopteryx).
A comparison may be helpful in understanding this point. On the top of the figure above is a tree showing human relationships. Dots at some points in time represent species we know about. We have a number of fossil apes, most over 10 million years in age. We also have a number of fossil hominids, of which Australopithecus afarensis, represented by “Lucy”, is perhaps the most famous and has often been mentioned as a possible human ancestor. While it’s not clear whether A. afarensis is or isn’t a direct human ancestor, it’s definitely not too far from that line. The next closest human relatives are the chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have no known fossil record. Someone might try to cast doubt on this human phylogeny by claiming that modern humans are probably not descended from Lucy, and her supposed ancestors (meaning chimpanzees) do not appear until millions of years later. Of course, there are other, earlier fossil apes, but they are much farther from humans than are chimpanzees. Nobody actually makes this argument, probably because we easily recognize it as ridiculous, equivalent to the question, “If humans are descended from apes, why are there still apes?” You don’t even have to accept human evolution to realize that question is silly. But Wells’ question about Archaeopteryx is exactly the same. We’re not sure if Archaeopteryx is a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it’s not far from that line. The theropod dinosaurs that Wells calls Archaeopteryx’s “supposed ancestors”, like Velociraptor, are merely the closest known relatives of Archaeopteryx, and stand in the same relationship to it that chimpanzees do to Lucy: later in time yet more primitive. And of course there are plenty of earlier, even more primitive theropod relatives. We know that the fossil record is incomplete, and it’s incomplete for both birds/dinosaurs and humans/apes. The fit between the actual fossil record and our natural expectations that primitive characters will appear earlier than advanced characters is surprisingly good, but it’s not perfect; as in these two cases, some fossils we would like to see have not been found. But enough have been found to give us a clear picture, at least in outline, of both human and bird evolution. “Lucy” and Archaeopteryx don’t have to be directly ancestral to make important contributions to those pictures.
1. How do I put italics into a post title?
2. How do I fix the attempted graphic?
Tiktaalik probably isn’t ancestral to ourselves, to Archaeopteryx, nor to any other tetrapod. It’s just a close “cousin” to our ancestor, which was a lot like it.
Granting that the term “transitional” is confusing, the fact is that it’s the adaptive radiation that’s interesting and instructive, not so much the exact ancestor of later organisms. Exact ancestors would be nice to know, but
they are not necessary for understanding how evolution proceeded.
Glen Davidson
How likely are we to find direct ancestors of living species in the fossil record? That depends on the quality of the fossil record. If we have found most of the extinct species that ever lived, our chances are good; on the other hand, if our knowledge is spotty, our chances are bad. We can judge the quality of the dinosaur fossil record based on the species we have found so far. Half of all known dinosaur genera are known only from a single specimen, which suggests that there are many more genera for which not even that single specimen has yet been found. Moreover, many of the genera with multiple specimens are known only from a single time and place.
How we can then be sure that were not rabbits in the cambrian?
Get digging.
In science, everything is provisional, but there are degrees of confidence. Given the length of the ghost lineages necessary between the Cambrian and known rabbit, mammal, tetrapod, and gnathostome fossils, and the taphonomic characteristics of rabbits etc., we can be certain for all practical purposes that there were no Cambrian rabbits.
The time to start believing there are rabbits in the cambrian is when they’re found. We don’t have to be absolutely certain there are none.
I would like to point out that since I wrote this some years ago, feathered theropods older than Archaeopteryx have been found, Eosinopteryx and Anchiornis among others, which renders Wells’ question even more moot.
Since Archaeopteryx couldn’t fly, as among many, many other things it was too heavy for flying, why did it evolve feathers fully ready for flying?
I know you don’t have a good answer, so don’t force yourself to come up with the bad one!
BTW: Don’t forget to do a post on abiogenesis icon thingy! I know it’s boring to you, but I wanna have some fun! 😉
Why was designed with ready fly feathers but too heavy to use them?
You tell me how a brainless evolution “knew” in advance that a too heavy dinosaur will one day need feathers to fly, and I will tell why I would design a too heavy dinosaur with feathers without an intention of it ever flying…
It didn’t, now why would you design feathers that were useless?
Maybe Larry Moran’s favorite random genetic draft has some foresight and “created” fathers millions of years before the dino needed them? Who knows? Anything is possible if you really want believe in evolution even if evidence contradicts it…
newton,
So why did the feathers evolve then?
I would design a dino with feathers, so that it would look cool…you know as a designer I can do whatever I wish…unlike blind mechanisms that look kinda sketchy when they can predict the future with such precision…;-)
Newton,
I designed a car with a wing but you wouldn’t think that I designed it with an intention for it to fly would you???
How about you Harshman?
I’m going to bed…
Here is something or you to read, if you can’t sleep 😉
“Was Tiny Feathered Creature Dinosaur or Bird?
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on February 2, 2013
It’s an itsy-bitsy . . . dinosaur? Or bird?
Flying out China’s seemingly endless supply of so-called “feathered dinosaurs” is the latest superlative—or rather the most diminutive—addition to the growing collection: the Eosinopteryx brevipenna. This big name for the smallest member of the illustrious group literally means “red-winged and short-feathered.” The animal was nearly a foot long (30 centimeters), roughly 8 inches shorter than the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx.1
This artist’s conception of Eosinopteryx brevipenna shows actual feathers present on the animal’s legs. Nevertheless, evolutionary researchers classify this animal, along with the house sparrows and Archaeopteryx, as dinosaurs. Image courtesy of IRSNB-KBIN/P. Golinvaux through NBC News.
The fossil, purchased from a dealer, was from the Tiaojishan Formation of Liaoning Province, the source of many fossils reported to be “feathered dinosaurs.” The authors of the analysis in Nature Communications write that they consider the likelihood of forgery “low,” and note that fossils from the area are difficult to date due to complicated stratigraphic patterns. They believe the fossil came from a region estimated to be Middle to Late Jurassic, conventionally dated between 165 +/- 1.2 and 153 +/- 2 million years old.2
This is a photograph and line drawing of Eosinopteryx brevipenna. Researchers note that its bony structure is very similar to that of Anchiornis, a feathered fossil described in 2009. This fossil, however, appears to have the forelimb bones (radius and ulna: rr, ru, lr, and lu) aligned in a way that would make flapping difficult. Pennaceous feathers are found on this fossil’s forelimbs and upper hind limbs. Image courtesy of P. Godefroit et al., “Reduced plumage and flight ability of a new Jurassic paravian theropod from China,” Nature Communications (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms2389 published online 22 January 2013.
bird-feather
This is a close-up of a pennaceous feather from Eosinopteryx’s wing. The feather’s shaft is visible in the upper right corner and the barbs below. Image credit: P. Godefroit et al., “Reduced plumage and flight ability of a new Jurassic paravian theropod from China,” Nature Communications (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms2389 published online 22 January 2013.
down
This is a close-up of what is thought to be downy feathery tufts from the tail of Eosinopteryx. Image credit: P. Godefroit et al., “Reduced plumage and flight ability of a new Jurassic paravian theropod from China,” Nature Communications (2013) doi:10.1038/ncomms2389 published online 22 January 2013.
Eosinopteryx brevipenna resembled Anchiornis in its bone structure, the researchers write. Also, they report Eosinopteryx had actual pennaceous feathers on its wings and upper hindlegs. Unlike Anchiornis, the leg feathers did not extend to its feet. Eosinopteryx also had a proportionately shorter tail and lacked pennaceous tail feathers, though the researchers suspect it had downy ones.3 They classify Eosinopteryx as a “sister taxon” to Anchiornis although they say it has comparatively less plumage and a shorter wingspan. Recent research has suggested that the feathers of both Anchiornis and Archaeopteryx were arranged in asymmetrical layers that would have made flight aerodynamically possible by allowing the birds to generate lift.4 Eosinopteryx, however, likely could not get off the ground.
Though the wing feathers were one-and-a-half times as long as the humerus (upper limb bone), the researchers believe the anatomy of its wing bones would have virtually precluded effective flapping. The authors write, “With a shorter humerus and manus [compared to the Anchiornis] and a reduced plumage, Eosinopteryx had a much shorter wing span than other feathered paravians including Archaeopteryx, Wellnhoferia and Anchiornis. The straight and closely aligned ulna-radius of Eosinopteryx also means that pronation/supination of the manus with respect to the upper arm would have been limited; combined with the absence of a bony sternum and weakly developed proximal humerus, these attributes suggest the Eosinopteryx had little or no ability to oscillate the arms to produce a wing beat.”5
I IMAGINE IT RUNNING AROUND AND JUMPING AROUND FROM TREE TRUNK TO TREE TRUNK, MAYBE USING ITS WINGS TO SPEED UP ITS RUNNING.
The authors suspect Eosinopteryx was a better runner than Anchiornis, however. The foot feathers and curved claws of Anchiornis may have interfered with its efforts to run. “However, with reduced plumage and short uncurved pedal claws,” they write, “Eosinopteryx would have been able to run unimpeded.”6 “It’s such a well preserved complete skeleton of a small dinosaur,” coauthor Gareth Dyke explains. “It would have lived in a forested, swampy environment. I imagine it running around and jumping around from tree trunk to tree trunk, maybe using its wings to speed up its running.”
The fact that this animal, then, had real feathers but was adapted for only ground locomotion prompts evolutionary thinkers to ascribe the survival advantage of feathered wings to be insulation or mate attraction. The authors indicate the apparent biodiversity of feathered animals in the Middle/Late Jurassic means the feathers had to have evolved much earlier. Dyke says, “This discovery sheds further doubt on the theory that the famous fossil Archaeopteryx – or ‘first bird’ as it is sometimes referred to – was pivotal in the evolution of modern birds. Our findings suggest that the origin of flight was much more complex than previously thought.”
As we evaluate the reported findings and sort facts from the conjecture, we should point out that the “collection of so-called feathered dinosaurs” to which we refer here is a very diverse group. This group typically includes dinosaur fossils with “dinofuzz” but no actual feathers as well as some birds with genuine feathers, such as Microraptor. Anchiornis has actual pennaceous feathers, as seen in published photographs,7 and is an example of the latter—a bird. Anchiornis also appears to have had feathers like those of the extinct toothed bird Archaeopteryx on its legs and feet. Thus, with actual pennaceous (anatomically mature modern feathers), Eosinopteryx brevipenna is also a bird, not a tiny dinosaur.
But why, then, does the report in Nature Communications indicate the animal is a dinosaur? When we examine the method used in the analysis, we find researchers used a computer program to compare the anatomical features of a number of “dinosaurs,” specifically theropods. According to this data analysis, Eosinopteryx brevipenna fit these dinosaur criteria and emerged as sister to Anchiornis.
The animals whose anatomical measurements were included in the category of “dinosaurs,” however, included Archaeopteryx (an extinct bird whose controversial re-classification as a dinosaur we discussed in “Dinosaur-Bird Confusion”) and even the ordinary house sparrow.8 Is it any wonder, then, that evolutionists considered this feathered animal to be a dinosaur? By these criteria, dinosaurs are tweeting in your backyard.
Yet classification systems such as these are man-made and, in this case, based on evolutionary assumptions. Biological classifications were originally based on common characteristics, but evolutionists prefer classification systems based on common ancestry and therefore now generally insist on considering birds to be highly evolved dinosaurs. Nevertheless, there are a host of insurmountable problems in the evolutionary dinosaur-to-bird scenario. Respiratory systems, body aerodynamics, finger embryology, and the complexities of the feather compared to scales present issues of irreducible complexities for the evolutionary paradigm.
The fossil record does not reveal an evolutionary progression in feather development, nor does it reveal transitional animals that are part bird and part dinosaur. The order of fossils in the fossil record is largely a record of the order various creatures were buried when their habitats were overcome by the rising waters of the biblical global Flood. This happened in the space of a few weeks, not millions of years. The presumed millions of years are based on unverifiable assumptions. Thus the fossil record does not demonstrate that birds evolved from dinosaurs, just as in the history of biology, no scientific observations have ever shown a way that dinosaurs could acquire the genetic information to make the dramatic changes that would have been necessary to evolve into birds.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/was-tiny-feathered-creature-dinosaur-or-bird/
Maybe, now your turn, why waste your time putting complex flying feathers on a non flying creature?
How is the question, not why.
Why’d you stop making them if they were cool looking?
Actually no you can’t unless you are omniscient and omnipotent which seems highly unlikely.
One always hits their target if they are not aiming at anything in particular.
First the fossil record claim of being inadequate was attacked by Stephen gould. Evolutionist. He strove to show the fossil record was not failing but instead PE, hios idea not mine, was the origin of the fossil record problem. in other words evolution happened quick and finished. then nothing until another profound event.
Nobody here mentioned this but are still imaging a old idea of gradualism being in the fossil record or not because of lack of digging.
Another error is about the use of traits to connect this ‘dino’ with birds.
Who says these traits are simply there for good reasons and in no way evidence of descent? Convergent evolution also!
Connecting traits is tricky if you aim for scientific investigation.
Who says there are dinosaurs. They are themselves just kinds of creatures with trivial like traits. who says there are mammals, reptiles??
its all trait combining.
Its not proven but was presumed by the old ones centuries ago.
There is no reason to say a trait in this creature demands its ancestral etc to a creature with the like trait.
its just a line of reasoning and has no evidence beyond the reasoning.
The fossils are so primitive, basic, few, that drawing conclusions about glorious evolution tress is unreasonable. whatever is true!
its old 19th century thinking that a tiny sample will show the truth.
Its too tiny and full or presumptions.
there is no reason to not see this dino bird as just another ground creature with diversity. Its probably not a bird at all.
Unless many fossils of it are found it would only enlighten a little more.
That’s such a nice just-so story. Completely unfalsifiable of course.
A technical question: When an entity/species is not a direct ancestor to some other, doesn’t it mean that it was an evolutionary dead end?
Erik,
By not being ancestral to any other, you mean? Yes and no. For practical reasons, an extinct lineage can’t evolve. But an asteroid, say, is not a verdict on the evolutionary path being followed by its victims.
J-Mac,
While “that is how the designer wanted it” is a sort of answer to any question like “why do dinos have feathers” the problem is such an answer is applicable to any question that can be asked. And the utility of an answer is directly proportional to the number of questions it can be applied to.
And given your “answer” has no limit to its applicability it consequently has no utility.
You put a smiley fact at the end there to indicate humour, but the sad thing is your answer is of the same level of quality as any other creationists.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/
So basically you are already a creation-scientist.
Just for the record, which ancient life form has been confirmed as a direct ancestor to some current life form of a different species? Surely there are some such ancestors by now.
Erik,
None, so far as I know. It’s not a necessary corollary of evolution being true that we should conclusively identify any given fossil as having modern descendants.
Though I suspect that in your head, you were already swaggering back to you desk with a dismissive “No further questions, Your Honor” after my first sentence.
You might want to rephrase that. Right now it looks like a pretty decisive blow against any corollaries of evolution.
Erik,
How so? Suppose a peculiar cataclysm caused all fossils to disappear? What then for theories of evolution?
Conversely, suppose you came upon a Roman mass grave. Would failure to locate any direct ancestors of living humans be any kind of evidence against kinship with them?
Suppose a peculiar cataclysm caused all manuscripts burn away. What then for any assumptions about what Aristotle, Plato etc wrote? Or about the theory that people wrote manuscripts at all? The “evidence” (i.e. lack of it) would be “congruent” or “compatible”, maybe even “plausible” with the yes-theory, but equally so with the no-theory.
The fact that all animals have resemblance on any specific level (genetic level these days, morphological level in Darwin’s days) should be in specific ways more significant than the differences. To support the hypothesis that species evolve gradually into other species it would be very helpful to have a single common ancestor. “None” is kind of suspicious, certainly for an evidence-based science.
Not, if we know specifically what a human species is. And we know that from having observed humans, how they look like and there’s the fact that they reproduce, breeding more humans.
To establish what you are trying to establish, we must know that species evolve into each other all the time without any problem, that it’s the most natural thing for them and it’s unnatural for them to fail to evolve like this.
Erik,
If their writings were wiped out, they would indeed be lost, but they aren’t part of the evidence for linguistic kinship anyway. Which is rather the point.
To support the hypothesis that I am related to my first cousins, it would be very helpful to produce our great-grandfather. “He’s dead, cremated” is kind of suspicious, certainly for anyone who has some standard of ‘evidence’. And there’s nothing else to go on, is there? Nothing. Well, except genomic data, and what does that prove? Hence the total failure of DNA-based genealogical businesses.
Do you hold ‘Common Design’ to the same standard? Certainly, we can observe that mutations happen, and that the differences between species are differences in extent of mutation – differences in degree, not type, from those in lower level and higher level taxonomic categories. ‘Evolving into each other’ is not an expectation. They change by degrees, and eventually the extent of change prompts us to name the now-separate tribes, or higher-order collections. Like languages, in that respect at least.
The joke is, Erik appears (from previous writings), to be an ‘off-the-Ark’ kind of guy. Either the Ark had both Common and Spotted Sandpipers, or an ancestor of even more Sandpipers (or maybe something more ancestral yet to an even wider group), in which case genomic data really do indicate Common Descent, and species really can ‘change into others’ (since the ur-pair cannot have been like all their descendants at once).
Which is it to be, Erik?
You just wait till Erik realizes how bananas fit perfectly in our hands.
Nobody has denied that a specific species keeps breeding the same species. If you do, you’d be alone.
But you are affirming something else: That species come from other species. This is the point of contention where some data would be very much welcome. Macroevolution does not follow from intra-species breeding.
Nobody claims otherwise. What they’re saying is that intra-species breeding isn’t a barrier to macroevolution, contrary to common misconception.
Yes, they would need to say that. And the evidence for this is….?
Did you even bother to read the OP? We don’t know if we have any fossils of ancestors. How would you tell? If we have a very good fossil record of some taxon, it’s likely that some of them are ancestors. If the fossil record is highly incomplete, it’s unlikely. But again, how would you recognize an ancestor?
It doesn’t matter. The evidence for evolution doesn’t demand that we identify ancestors.
Rumraket,
How would you support this claim?
If macroevolution is gradual, taking many generations, then no generation will be much different from the preceding generation, and yet big changes will happen over time. And of course that’s just what we see.
We would look for evidence that it has happened.
You know, like common genetic material in different species.
Glen Davidson
Why would macroevolution not happen? If you have a divided population, with no gene flow between them, what would stop them diverging to and beyond the point of reproductive incompatibility?
Allan Miller,
DNA repair mechanisms and apoptosis that limit genetic variation.
colewd,
That’s an argument against microevolution (though apoptosis is irrelevant). Given microevolution, why would macroevolution not happen? It’s not as if DNA repair checks against the population as a whole, or a historic data bank.
Allan Miller,
Apoptosis is not irrelevant because it reduces variation when DNA is unrepairable. What we are observing is tight variation in populations of the same specie. .1% (1 per 1000) in humans and .2% (2 per 1000) in great apes. Cells are not designed to vary. When they do bad things happen (cancer).
Micro evolution does not require large genetic changes.
colewd,
Principally in somatic lines (which don’t contribute to evolutionary change), and without any reference to the rest of the population in which the individual sits.
So all polymorphisms are cancer? You are somewhat confused between somatic and germ line mutation, and between variation and mutation rate. Any rate greater than zero provides fuel for change.
Nor does macro. Not all at once.
How does macroevolution not occur as a consequence of repeat rounds of micro? You’re still not getting it.
colewd,
As has been explained to you before, neither DNA repair nor apoptosis limits genetic variation. DNA repair reduces the mutation rate to what we observe, but has no effect on the unlimited accumulation, over time, of the mutations we observe. Apoptosis affects somatic cells, not the germ line.
Anyway, haven’t you already accepted that macroevolution has happened, at least in ratite birds?
This is a strong claim. On what basis do you make it?
Allan Miller,
Apoptosis is a mechanism in the germ line.
All mutations do not cause cancer but the mechanism that prevents mutations that do also limits variation in the germ line.
Unless the mechanisms are controlling variation around a tight mean which the evidence supports.
OMagain,
If you study the mechanisms around the cell cycle you will see that there are mechanisms that reduce variation. DNA repair and apoptosis are two of the mechanisms. The adaptive immune system is another mechanism. The cell is designed to divide at the right time with incredible precision. Cancer is one result when this process runs out of control.
Without these mechanisms multicellular life would not be possible as cells receive thousands of environmental mutations per day that are repaired or the cell initiates apoptosis.
colewd,
Hence my saying ‘principally in somatic cells’ rather than exclusively.
Once again you don’t get it. Because
What evidence? How does this ‘mean’ impose itself? Polymerase errors, DNA repair and – if you must – apoptosis operate by reference to the opposite strand, the homologous chromosome or the overall genome respectively. All of these are limited to the info available within an individual. You seem to think that something external to intdividuals is imposing control on the generality of genomes beyond these local controls. How?
Your explanation must be grounded at some level. Calling something a mechanism is not an argument that something is designed.
What is your evidence that the mechanisms around the cell cycle are designed?
Allan Miller,
The evidence is the expected variation between two humans with a population of around 7 billion.
The repair mechanisms are running prior to all gene expression.
Can you support this claim?
colewd,
What, the entirety of biology is based on humans?
The effective population size of humans is MUCH smaller than 7 billion. And current variation does not tell one either the mutation nor the fixation rates.
Prior to, during and after. Another irrelevant point. This is what happens in the soma, principally. The soma is not the evolutionary stream; that’s the germ line.
What, the way you supported the idea that long-term variation is limited to wobbling round some kind of ‘mean’? Yes, I can easily support it to that extent. And just did.