Church of England to Apologise to Darwin

Hate to tell you this, but Archie is most definitely a transitional. If science says it isn't, why don't you show us the research of this.

According to Dr. Alan Feduccia, who is one of the worlds authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an Evolutionist himself, he states. "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. (BUT IT'S NOT) It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of '(paleobabble)' is going to change that.

Archaeoraptor was also hailed as a missing link by National Geographic, yet later on National Geographic had to recant that claim after the evidence was reconsidered.

As I have stated. The bird was not a transional, and creationest were the first to state that the bird was not a transional, so yes, science would agree with them.

And when you have groups of UFOs traveling in formation,

Nice quote mine. Sorry you won't get out of it.

Feduccia believes that birds evolved from another branch, not directly from dinosaurs. Unfortunately he has had only moderate success in this endeavor.

Oddly, he's one of the very few people who follow this. Sure, he's got some work under his belt, but nothing solid enough to knock Archie "off his perch". He's still waiting for his "missing link" to appear.

He's got a great hypothesis, but no groundbreaking evidence to support it.

Feduccia's colleagues are also authorities in avian evolution. Guess what, they don't buy Feddie's claim. Moreso, using his claims means you have to concede that birds most certainly did evolve. Told ya that you wouldn't make it outta this one.

As for ArchieRaptor...

"Archaeoraptor" is the generic name informally assigned in 1999 to a fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. The magazine claimed that the fossil was a "missing link" between birds and terrestrial theropod dinosaurs. Even prior to this publication there had been severe doubts about the fossil's authenticity. It led to a scandal when it was definitely proven to be a forgery through further scientific study.

Have you not read what i just wrote? I have gone into great deal of detail explaining exactly why it is a transitional and yet you ignore this and simply repeat your original assertion....sounds like denial. If you cannot explain why the features i just listed don't make it reptilian, then you have indeed lost this argument.

Simply saying "no, it's not!" isn't going to cut it.

Feduccia is just one of a number of evolutionest who do not believe that Archaeopteryx is a transional. Science magazine stated that true birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx, so archaeopteryx could hardly of been their ancestor. Carl O. Dunbar is Professor of Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Yale University: He states that because of its feathers,(Archaeopteryx is) distinctly to be classed as a bird. Nature magazine states that with every new Archaeopteryx fossil discovered, it was realized that the animal cannot have been half-bird and half-reptile, still unable to fly, but that on the contrary it was a (fully flying bird): Larry Martin is an American vertebrate paleontologist and curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas: He states, "If I had to support the dinosaur origins of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it."

The problem here is, you appear to be ignoring, or are unaware that a number in the field of Evolution do not believe that Archaeopteryx is a transional. Even some of the more popular publications that support Evolution do not believe it is a transional. And even though Feduccia's conclusion may be in the minority, he is more of an authority on birds than most evolutionist. If many of your own people do not believe that Archaeopteryx is a transional, why would you believe I would embrace it as one? Archie has been knocked off it's pearch, and it was done by some of your best people, and publications.

Velociraptor had feathers. Your point?

Explain it's teeth. Explain its tail. You don't pay any attention to its reptilian features whatsoever, selectively choosing arguments that do not address these. Even its skeletal structure makes its flying capabilities questionable.



And you appear to be ignoring the majority (read: 99%) of science has concluded that it is. You're using a "speaking from authority" argument, and selectively putting aside the fact that the views you put forth are of the slim minority, not the majority.

Sorry, the things you cherry pick from Answers in Genesis simply don't hold water when put alongside their respective fields as a whole.

Could you please show me the documentation that confirms that 99% of science believes that Archaeopteryx is a missing link?

Flying capabilities questionable?

Evolutionists stated that the most important evidence that showed us that Archaeopteryx could not fly, was the fact that it had no sternum or breastbone. Yet when they discovered the seventh Archaeopteryx fossil in 1992, it astonished Evolutionists. The reason for this was because this fossil did indeed reveal that Archaeopteryx had a sternun. That discovery totally invalidated the claim that the bird lacked the ability to fly. Also, it was discovered that the birds asymmetrical feather structure, was identical to that of present-day birds. And as far as it's teeth go, teeth are not a universal feature among reptiles. Even today, some reptiles lack teeth. Sharing characters does not prove evolution. Archaeopteryx was an unusual bird, but then again, a platypus is an unusual mammal.

All About Archaeopteryx

Sources. References. Data. The whole nine yards. Thereya go.



Keel (bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

There's a difference between a sternum and a keeled sternum.

No, teeth aren't universal or unusual to reptiles. However, birds with teeth...

Ahahahahaha!! Well I haven't got all week to read that now (but i will eventually) but it looks pretty conclusive to me, laid out easily and chronologically so even a creationist can understand.

Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

Can we see your evidence please Camy?

All About Archaeopteryx

Sources. References. Data. The whole nine yards. Thereya go.



Keel (bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

There's a difference between a sternum and a keeled sternum.

No, teeth aren't universal or unusual to reptiles. However, birds with teeth...

There is a difference from a sternum, and from keeled sternum. A keeled sternum would be found in a much larger bird, where as a sternum is what we see in the Archaeopteryx.

Birds With Teeth? Yes some of the more ancient birds actually did have teeth, this is pointed out by a discovery made by Prof. B. F. Mudge. Mudges discovery was announced by Prof. O.C. Marsh who originally thought the jaws with teeth were from a small reptile, yet he soon discovered the fossil was actually a new sub-class of bird.

Birds with Teeth

And a sternum does not allow for flight. The keel is what the wing muscles attach to, allowing for flight.

Big difference.

The birds in particular which do not have a keel? Flightless.



Archaeopteryx predates Ichtyornis by about fifty million years. This is quite in line with evolutionary biology.

Now, the trick question is where'd the teeth go? The answer? A simple genetic switch... directly in line with evolutionary biology.

This is one of the larger pieces of evidence in dinosaur to bird evolution.

All About Archaeopteryx

Sources. References. Data. The whole nine yards. Thereya go.



Keel (bird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

There's a difference between a sternum and a keeled sternum.

No, teeth aren't universal or unusual to reptiles. However, birds with teeth...

I read the link you gave to me, yet I was unable to see where it states that 99% of science believes Archaeopteryx is a transional.
Also in the links conclusion it is stated that Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. So even the information that you have passed on, claims that Archaeopteryx is a BIRD. They article in question believes it is a transional only because it has certain traits found in dinosaurs, yet common traits are not proof for transionals.

From berkeley edu. we read that Archaeopteryx was a true flyer, and even though its sternum was flat, or at best slightly keeled, it was still a true flying bird. Your belief is based on old preceptions, and not the science of the day. And you will note, I have not been posting information from Creation science sites. This information comes from believers in Evolution.

Avian Flight

I'm not a scientest, yet I do know that some of Americas top believers in Evolution do not believe Archaeopteryx is a transional.

Science magazine states: True birds have existed at least as long as archaeopteryx so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor.

Carl O. Dunbar Professor of Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Yale University states: Because of its feathers, (Archaeopteryx is) distinctly to be classed as a bird.

A great number of evolutionists believe that Archaeopteryx cannot be an intermediate form, and that it is simply an extinct species of bird.

Alan Feduccia Professor of Avian Evolution, Paleobiology and Systematics at the University of North Carolina: How do you derive birds from a heavy , earthbound, bipedal reptile that has a deep body, a heavy balancing tail, and fore-shortened forelimbs? Biophysically, (IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.)

and I would agree with him.

archie derived from this:







and just for the heck of it here are some other feathered dinosaurs:









Deinonychus is one of the best-known dromaeosaurids,[2] and is a close relative of the smaller Velociraptor, found in younger, Late Cretaceous-age rock formations in Central Asia.[3][4] The clade they form is called Velociraptorinae. The subfamily name Velociraptorinae was first coined by Rinchen Barsbold in 1983[5] and originally contained the single genus Velociraptor. Later Phil Currie included most of the dromaeosaurids.[6] Two Late Cretaceous genera, Tsaagan from Mongolia[3] and the North American Saurornitholestes,[1] may also be close relatives, but the latter is poorly known and hard to classify.[3] Velociraptor and its allies are regarded as using their claws more than their skulls as killing tools, as opposed to dromaeosaurids like Dromaeosaurus with stockier skulls.[7] Together with the troodontids, the dromaeosaurids form the Deinonychosauria clade which is a sister taxon of aves. Phylogenetically, the Deinonychosauria represent the group of non-avian dinosaurs the most closely related to birds.



The similarity of the forelimbs of Deinonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) led John Ostrom to revive the link between dinosaurs and birds.

Quote:

Barbara J. Stahl evolutionist paleontology professor and senior faculty member at Saint Anselm College, Manchester: No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known,

quote mine? Who ever suggested that feathers came from scales?

Dromaeosauridae: Information from Answers.com

Quote:

I could go on and on here, but the fact remains that many if not most believers in evolution do not believe that Archaeopteryx is a transional.

Most? that's bullshit and you know it.

Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself said: "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,
(but it's not). It is a bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.

Quote:

Your arguement about it being a transional is not with me, it is with all the other Evolutionest, and pro evolution publications that say your wrong.
Until you can convince them of the error of their way, your not going to cut it with me. LOL

mind pointing out these publications?