Here's one excellent article detailing why the fossil more likely represents a bird, not a transitional creature between bird and dinosaur.
There is a growing consensus that Archaeopteryx, a bird whose fossils have been found in the Solnhofen Plattenkalk of Franconia (West Germany), was indeed capable of flight. The claim, however, that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between reptiles and birds simply won't fly. Recent fossil...
www.icr.org
This is most definitely not an "excellent article".
Let's take a claim at random:
"L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs…the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs."
This is not what Martin et al "established" in 1980, its something they argued for. However, later fossil evidence has shown them to be incorrect. At least half a dozen new
Archaeopteryx fossils have been formally described since 1980.
The morphology of the coracoid and that of the proximal tarsals is, for the first time, clearly visible in the new specimen. The new specimen demonstrates the presence of a hyperextendible second toe in Archaeopteryx. This feature is otherwise known only from the basal avian Rahonavis and deinonychosaurs (Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae), and its presence in Archaeopteryx provides additional evidence for a close relationship between deinonychosaurs and avians. The new specimen also shows that the first toe of Archaeopteryx was not fully reversed but spread medially, supporting previous assumptions that Archaeopteryx was only facultatively arboreal.
The above paper shows evidence of the
Archaeopteryx ankle (tarsals) having features of both ancestor and descendent populations - a classic mosiac or "transitional" species.
Similarly this paper shows close homologies between the tarsals in
Archaeopteryx and non-avian therapod dinosaurs. In fact, it essentially disproves the hypothesis of Martin et al (1980)
The present study, based on more extensive material, reveals that, although the carinate process becomes associated with the calcaneum during later development, there is evidence that it originates as a cartilaginous process from the astragalus and is therefore homologous with the ratite condition. As the avian tarsus is homologous with that of theropods, and of Archaeopteryx, it may be used to support a close phylogenetic relationship among them.
Now, we might be generous and say that since Mr Gish was writing in 1998 that he couldn't have known this. However, there were literally several dozen papers describing
Archaeopteryx ankle bones available that he could have looked up at this point that describe homologous structures with therapod dinosaurs. There was, starting roughly in 1988, a massive re-appraisal of
Archaeopteryx and other
maniraptoran dinosaurs, thanks to the discoveries coming out of China at the time. We now have fossils representing more than a dozen groups of avian dinosaurs in the
Avialae clade.
Duane Gish, as is standard practice for creationists, selectively quoting here to make uncertainties in the sciences appear like counter-factuals. It's dishonest, it's anti-intellectual and it relies on the audience not having the time, intellect, resources, curiosity or motivation to actually investigate what is being argued.
