Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds (Talk.Origins)

Claim CC214.1:


 * Modern birds were probably not descended from Archaeopteryx, so it is wrong to claim Archaeopteryx as a missing link between dinosaurs and birds.

Source:
 * Jonathan Wells, 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 115-116.

CreationWiki response:

Talk.Origins apparently concedes that the main point of the claim is correct, and is mainly arguing over the definition of "transitional forms." It is agreed that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic form, but what is at dispute is what that means. What is at issue is ancestor/descendant relationship. While mosaic forms like Archaeopteryx show that such a relationship might exist it in no way shows that it does exist. To be meaningful to evolution an ancestor/descendant relationship must be assumed. That is the problem.

What is indisputable is that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of dinosaurs and modern birds, but even that assumes that those dinosaurs are not misclassified birds.

While there are other mosaics, they do not form an objective series between dinosaurs and birds.
 * Reference: (Talk.Origins) There are gaps between reptiles and birds.

O Archaeopteryx provavelmente não era um ancestral dos pássaros modernos (Talk.Origins)