Archaeopteryx by the Numbers | The Institute for Creation Research

Archaeopteryx by the Numbers

Sometimes scientists get a chance to collaborate. This happened last year when a fellow creation-based researcher invited me to contribute comments about bird and dinosaur anatomy to his statistical analysis of relevant fossils. The end result was a technical (i.e., peer-reviewed) article published in the Journal of Creation.1 Our main question asked if certain fossils’ features fall into an evolution-friendly or Genesis-fitting classification. This experience illustrated how shared talents can lead to a more defensible worldview.

We scientists too often believe our results came from objective analyses, not seeing the subjective ideas that crept in unnoticed. Evolutionary workers now call dinosaurs “non-avian dinosaurs” to distinguish them from birds, which they call “avian dinosaurs.” They have classified some fossil birds as reptiles and certain fossil reptiles as birds. Many bolster these beliefs by citing analyses backed with numbers from measurements, formulae, and statistics. What could be more objective than numbers?

But the statements “birds evolved from dinosaurs” and “God created…every winged bird according to its kind”2 cannot both be true.3 Do the numbers really support this evolutionary perspective? Our analysis showed that those kinds of numbers are more subjective than they at first appeared.

Computational biologists use formulae to assign numbers to estimates of how different one specimen is from another. The raw data are the fossils in the ground—fossils that are almost always incomplete. Someone has to measure various parameters, like the number and placement of holes in the skull, teeth in the jaw, or claws on a foot.

Then, formulae turn those initial measurements into values that indicate how likely it looks for creatures to belong to different kinds. A simple example formula uses a calculation to estimate the anatomical distance between two specimens: dij = mij/nij.4 Workers can add to this an assigned cutoff value, usually different for each set of fossil measurements. Stricter cutoffs produce more groups and looser cutoffs lump more specimens into fewer groups. Which slant would you prefer?

These processes present plenty of room for bias. Subjectivity enters when selecting fossil sets, creature traits, the importance of each trait, completeness of data sets, which formulae to use, cutoff values, and more.

Prior studies have grouped the extinct bird Archaeopteryx with certain extinct reptiles. But Archaeopteryx was no reptile, despite what someone’s numbers may say. Its body balanced over its knees like modern birds, not over its hips as in heavier-tailed theropods. It had flight feathers like birds and unlike theropods. However, it had teeth in its beak and long tails, unlike most birds.5

Numeric results that lump this creature with reptiles play into the impossible story that theropods evolved into birds.6 That’s why we did our own study. Our new filters recategorized some of the same specimens using the same trait lists that others had used. And our equally numeric results separated Archaeopteryx from reptiles.

What does all this show?

My small part in this project helped me see even more ways that subjectivity creeps into the classification process. In response to the one who says Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur and that numbers back it up, I can now ask, “Whose numbers?”

References

  1. Cserhati, M., B. Thomas, and J. Tay. 2020. Hierarchical clustering in dinosaur baraminology studies. Journal of Creation. 34 (3): 64-73.
  2. Genesis 1:21.
  3. To evolve implies a series of forms in between basic kinds, but Genesis 1 says creatures reproduce according to their kinds.
  4. dij is the distance between two species i and j; nij is the number of comparable characters between them; and mij is the number of mismatched characters.
  5. Archaeopteryx was more like birds than extinct reptiles, but for all we know it may lie outside both groups. Whatever man-made group category we place it in, Archaeopteryx was no evolutionary link but a fully formed flying animal.
  6. Evolutionist Alan Feduccia listed anatomical challenges for theropod-to-bird evolution, citing “such problems as the transformation of teeth and tooth replacement, the transformation of a dinosaurian septate, hepatic-piston breathing system to a bird flow-through lung, the complete abandonment of a balanced seesaw body plan to the avian model, and the reelongation of already foreshortened forelimbs, to mention a few.” Feduccia, A. 1999. 1,2,3 = 2,3,4: Accommodating the cladogram. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (9): 4740-4742.

* Dr. Thomas is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in paleobiochemistry from the University of Liverpool.

Cite this article: Brian Thomas, Ph.D. 2021. Archaeopteryx by the Numbers. Acts & Facts. 50 (5).

The Latest
NEWS
April 2025 ICR Wallpaper
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things...

NEWS
Human Evolution and the Inner Ear
The vain attempt by evolutionists to make an evolutionary connection between people and ape-like ancestors continues. This time, it is in regard to...

CREATION PODCAST
Defending the Faith with a Rocket Scientist | Creation.Live Podcast:...
How do engineering principles, biological complexity, and a solid understanding of apologetics work together to further the cause of Christ? Why...

NEWS
Aerobic and Anaerobic Hot Spring Bacteria
God designed a domain of prokaryotes called Archaea that thrive in harsh and extreme environments. In 1969, two microbiologists, Thomas Brock and Hudson...

CREATION PODCAST
The Soulless Hominid Theory: A Fatal Flaw in Old Earth Creationism...
Welcome to the second episode in a series called “The Failures of Old Earth Creationism.” Many Christians attempt to fit...

NEWS
Humpback Whale Calls Echo Creation
There is nothing simple about the system of communication called language, whether animal or human.1 Human language is a very sophisticated...

NEWS
Mary Parker, Creation Ministry Partner of Dr. Gary Parker, Is...
Mary Parker, the wife and co-laborer of Dr. Gary Parker, went home to be with her Lord on March 20, 2025. Dr. Parker was a popular and effective...

NEWS
Plants Rely on Quantum Mechanics
Scientists will probably never fully understand photosynthesis as additional research uncovers even more fascinating mysteries.1,2 ICR’s...

NEWS
Martian Polar Ice Cap ''Surprisingly Young''?
A team of German planetary scientists has concluded that a three-kilometer-thick northern polar ice cap on Mars has a “surprisingly young”...

NEWS
''Blood Worm Moon'' Total Lunar Eclipse 2025
Barring cloud cover, about 75% of the country saw the total lunar eclipse, aka the “Blood Worm Moon.” Texas had good weather conditions...