Are you a bird? Are you a reptile? Are you just some sort of weird guy? Your undeniable transistionalness between dinosaurs and birds is an endless source of scientific enigmas and psuedoscientific enemas. Scientists love you, creationists love to hate you while pretending to love you.
While prepping for the triumphant return of Dr. Sharp and his Big Silly Jesus Circus (to be recounted in a later blog post), I noted how he deals with your inconvenient behind. When the guy has an entire presentation called “Missing Links and Other Evolutionary Assumptions,” you know he has to eventually. For all those other feathered dinosaurs, he just pretends they’re hoaxes (which is blatantly untrue and will come back to haunt him the more the world learns about them), but you’re not so easily explained away. Luckily, creationist tribes the world over are adept in several styles of Dumb Fu. Dr. Sharp employs Monkey Style on you, using semantics and rhetorical gymnastics to explain you away. He simply states that you are all 100% bird, including the teeth, tail, modified saurischian pubis, foreclaws, and everything else; and you are not a transitional fossil because scientists have placed it in the bird family so nyeh. He caps this off by saying ostrichs and baby hoatzins have claws, therefore we can ignore your claws. And teeth. And bony tail. And pubis. And all the other features that belong to dinosaurs.
By the way, the thing about the ostrich is a lie. Creationists lie. That’s all they do.
Another creationist who lies is Ken Ham. Ham runs Answers in Genesis and the infamous Creation Museum in Kentucky. He also maintains a pretty heinous chinbeard. Seriously, look at this. Ew.
We don’t need transitional fossils; all we need to disprove special creation by a loving god is that crap on his jaw. I digress.
His approach differs slightly from Dr. Sharp’s, in that he just completely mutilates you. The sculpture in his museum retains two of your claims to fame and discards the rest. Gone are your teeth and dinosaurian skeletal structure, in goes the beak and bird features. If someone showed this to an actual scientist and had them guess what it was supposed to be, they would never, ever guess it was Archaeopteryx. It’s not even close. It’s like putting booties on a dog and calling it a Shetland. This bird-itized reconstruction is just the thing Ken needs to further his modus operandi. Which is lying. And chinbearding.
Yep, you’re pretty aggravating to creationists. You’re also pretty aggravating to me.
That’s because I’ve been all over the freaking internet, and I cannot find one museum quality model of you. I can’t even find a toy of you. You’re the most famous fossil of all time, and you just happen to be toy sized, there should at least be a plushy of you somewhere.
How the flipping monkeypuzzles am I going to put together a dope presentation on evolution if I can’t have a Beanie Baby Archaeopteryx in there?!? That would be adorably awesome and awesomly adorable. Yet you hold back.
To heck with you, Archaeopteryx. It looks like I’m going to have to settle with a Microraptor toy. Have fun tearing it up at Ken Ham’s pad. With your stupid fake beak.