Page 150 - The Transitional Form Dilemma

THE TRANSITIONAL-FORM DILEMMA

2. The structure of its feathers: One of the most important pieces
of evidence that Archaeopteryx was able to fly is the bird’s feather struc-
ture. Its asymmetrical feather structure, identical to that of modern-day
birds, shows that it was capable of perfect flight. As stated by the well-
known paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar, “because of its feathers
[Archæopteryx is] distinctly to be classed as a bird.” 119
The paleontologist Robert Carroll offers this explanation on the
subject:
The geometry of the flight feathers of Archæopteryx is identical with that of
modern flying birds, whereas nonflying birds have symmetrical feathers. The
way in which the feathers are arranged on the wing also falls within the range
of modern birds . . . According to Van Tyne and Berger, the relative size and
shape of the wing of Archæopteryx are similar to that of birds that move
through restricted openings in vegetation, such as gallinaceous birds, doves,
woodcocks, woodpeckers, and most passerine birds. . . . The flight feathers have
been in stasis for at least 150 million years. . . . 120

3. The claws on its wings and the teeth in its beak: Evolutionists
formerly considered the fact that Archaeopteryx had claws
on its wings and teeth in its mouth as one of the
major proofs that it was a transitional form. Yet
these features do not demonstrate any rela-
tionship between this animal and reptiles.
Two modern-day species of bird, Touraco cory-
thaix and Opisthocomus hoazin, also have claws
that help them to cling onto branches. These
animals are fully-fledged birds, with no reptil-
ian features. The argument that Archaeopteryx
must be a transitional form because it had
claws is therefore invalid.
Neither do the teeth in
Hoatzin
Archaeopteryx’s mouth make it a

148