The fact that he combines the qualities of birds and reptiles that have strong teeth, such as lizards and a super long tail and this is the first bird shows a bird feathers in his body
The Archeopteryx extinct since about 150 million years ago
This bird represents the transition from dinosaurs to birds and shows that its shape to a large extent it combines Monday
Archeopteryx were classified as to the presence of bird feathers, legs and wings in addition to the skull skull-like birds
Has yet to determine the kind tree Is it a bird or is it satisfied in addition to the bird he was not fluent in Aviation
is perhaps the classic transitional form with its curious mix of reptilian(1) and avian features. Unsurprisingly, those who feel that evolution is incompatible with Creation have a vested interest in belittling Archy's transitional status. Typically, this is done by emphasizing its bird-like features. So, it might surprise you to learn that I can prove that the creationist Duane Gish does not think much of Archy's flying capability. Well I can. Gish says, and I quote from the title of an article of his: "Archaeopteryx won't fly" (2) I managed this "proof" by omitting key words on the title. The full title reads: "As a transitional form Archaeopteryx won't fly." What he means, of course, is that Archy is not a good transitional form. My "proof" can be considered as a species of the fallacy called special pleading; we commit this fallacy when we make much of material that is favourable to our position and ignore or downplay material that is not.
Gish commits the same fallacy in "proving" that Archy was a fully fledged bird and no transitional form. He says "No doubt Archaeopteryx was a feathered creature that flew - it was a bird!" Gish's "proof" is to show that all of the 21 specialized characters of Archaeopteryx claimed by some paleontologists to be shared with coelurosaurian dinosaurs are in fact bird-like. (In fact he only discusses 6 characters). But I'm prepared to let him have all 21. What he fails to mention, which is the crucial point, is that Archy does indeed share many unspecialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs - so many that a turkey might have outfoxed Archy in a dogfight!
This is not the first time the fallacy has been committed with respect to Archy and in the name of Christianity. Philip Johnson, who is trained in legal philosophy, might be expected to give a fair summary of the evidence before announcing his verdict that Archy is "on the whole bird-like" (3). Yet he failed to tell the jury of any of Archy's exclusively reptilian characters; if you left it to
Johnson you would never know that it had a tail, an unfused backbone, unfused digits, a pubic peduncle, ribbed cervical vertebrae and no uncinate processes to name a few. Apart from Archaeopteryx these are only found in reptiles. Instead he chose to mention only those reptile-like features which are sometimes found in birds.