Archaeopteryx essay paper

Dr. Gish’s article gives information about Archaeopteryx from different points of view, but he insists on his own that Archaeopteryx is thought to be an ancient form of a modern bird. As we see the Dr. Gish gives opinions of other scientists who reject the belief of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form and try to establish their own. Of course it’s not that easy to establish the truth when just few fossils have found and studied.  Even by the means of all known equipment and knowledge in geology and paleontology the conclusion made by scientists can be mistakable.  The remains of such an old creature would definitely be an argument of evolutionists about existence of old forms of birds and their origin in reptiles. More over some scientist even agree that though Archaeopteryx had a lot of features and characteristics of the bird, it moved not by the means of flight but by the means of improved jumping from branch to branch. To the opponents of authenticity of Archaeopteryx fossils is found that the fossils of the ancient creature were found in Bavaria with difference in time in 16 years. Dr. Gish also gives us information about find in Post, Texas. This is probably the biggest argument against Archaeopteryx to be a transitional form, because Texan find was 75 million years older, and looked more like a bird. As Dr. Gish mentions if this theory is true then ancient reptiles can not be considered to be ancestral to birds. But all these theories are just theories because of the lack of arguments to defend and prove what they state and basically because of the common sense about the development of life.

Having both the features of reptiles (wings with claws, a tail which included 20 vertebra, etc.) and birds I consider it to be a transitional forms form between reptile and bird, which is widely accepted. More over the fossils of ancient bird ancestors that are considered to be Archaeopteryx differ and are thought to be of different genus. Fossils exhibited in Berlin museum have the name Archaeopteryx siemensi and one exhibited in London museum has a name Archaeopteryx litographica.

Dr. Gish uses “transitional form” to determine a group of animals that had features of different animal classes, both a considered ancestor and modern form. To his point of view Archaeopteryx had even more features of a flying bird than of an ancient reptile, and to his point view it could be considered as a bird, “much more a bird” as he writes. But highlights of the differences between Archaeopteryx and a modern prove show that his theory of Archaeopteryx being a bird is not well-proved, doesn’t have enough soil and basically incorrect. He insists on the fact that its a great lack of transitional forms so it’s not that easy to make any conclusion about evolution occurred or not and it’s not often easy to determine the relationship between the ancient animal classes.

Another interesting case in paleontology is Romers Gap. It’s a missing chain in the evolution of tetrapod with a 20 million years period.  Not so long ago it was filled with new fossils and considers to be closing, giving more proof and clearance on the evolution. Again this can be seen as an argument against Dr. Gish’s theory which has a lot of ideas of creationism in itself. The common sense says that evolution was observed on the example of early life forms of living creatures as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, especially we see it clear by their paws prints and their evolution, than evolution had to be observed on later more complicated life forms, as reptiles and birds.

In general Dr. Gish’s arguments described in his book have an interest to look on and study, but his works are more literal than scientific.

Leave a Reply