Does it quack like a duck?

A recent analysis of the classic intermediate fossil Archeopteryx in light of new fossils has reclassified it from a basal bird to a group of dinosaurs that are close cousins to the basal birds. It is a minor move that we see all the time in paleontology. It is unlikely any of our intermediate fossils are direct ancestors of modern species because the fossil record is so incomplete. That doesn't mean they are not intermediate. The features are intermediate, and the species is a close cousin of the actual intermediate. All that has happened with Archeopteryx is that it has been moved from a first cousin to a second cousin. It still has intermediate features. This is a new analysis and it might change, but for this post, I will assume it is correct.

Any change in the status of such an iconic specimen will produce the inevitable crowing from creationists, and plenty of others have analyzed the basic misunderstanding of the creationists (which I summarized very briefly above). But I have not seen anyone else comment on one other irony of the creationists reaction to this, so I thought I would point it out. For decades, creationists have insisted Archeopteryx is not an intermediate fossil. The most common way to do this is to say this it is obviously a bird. It had feathers and could fly. Creationists like to force intermediate fossils into one category or another, rather than being intermediate between the two categories. Historically, they have almost always forced Archeopteryx into the bird category. I have never once read a creationists say that it is a dinosaur.

So how does this new analysis affect their interpretation? The new analysis says that Archeopteryx was a dinosaur, more closely related to Deinonychus than to birds. It shows that every creationist was wrong--if it must be forced into one category or another, it is into dinosaurs, not birds. But the creationists are crowing thatevolutionists were wrong, and say not a word that they have all been wrong as well. The change for evolution is minor--a change from first to second cousins, but still intermediate. But it seems to me the mistake for the creationists is great. If you insist all species clearly fit into one category or another and there can be nothing in between, then it is hard to explain how a creature that is now clearly a dinosaur could once have been universally considered clearly a bird. It is a minor change for evolution, it is a complete blow to creationists.

It is funny that they do not see this inconsistency in their own view, but not surprising. Their mode of argument is entirely negative. Any percieved mistake by evolution is considered evidence for creation, even if the mistake is even more harmful for creation. Thus they nitpick over whether peppered moths evolved, even though powerful microevolution is an absolutely essential part of the creationists model. And they declare victory in the fluidity of taxonomic classification, even though a rigid classification is essential to the creationists model.