The points on which evolutionist base their portrayal of Archaeopteryx as a transitional form are its skeleton, which resembles that of dinosaurs, the claws on its wings, and the teeth in its mouth. They therefore claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form that still had many reptilian features, but had newly acquired some bird-like ones.
However, the “reptilian” features in question do not actually make Archaeopteryx a reptile at all. The claims put forward pointing to its claws are particularly invalid, because there are birds with clawed wings alive today. Just like Archaeopteryx, the Australian Hoatzin has clawed wings. Again like Archaeopteryx, it flies with a small breastbone. However, for that reason alone, evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx was unable to fly, or could not fly very well. (SOURCE) This demonstrates that such features as claws, teeth and skeletal structure like those in Archaeopteryx make it a unique species of bird, not a reptile.
However, all kinds of biased interpretations can be made from the evolutionist perspective. Were a fossil Hoatzin discovered today in the appropriate geological strata, very likely it would be proposed as a transitional form, in the same way as Archaeopteryx was. But the fact that this creature is still alive and manifestly a bird does not let evolutionists make any such claim.
Incoming search terms:
- hoatzin bird facts