Church of England to Apologise to Darwin

Again, click the links in your own link. It concedes that its flight abilities are debated, and that it wasn't exactly the best flyer out there. Meaning they weren't filling the skies like you see birds doing today. More than likely it was able to make small point to point flights, and that's about it. Its skeletal and feather structure do not allow for full avian flight.

You'd know that by reading the link I posted

Nope these animals aren't related at all

/sarcasm

Do you expect us to take your "source" seriously? It's from answersingenesis, the furthest thing from an unbiased source.

Well as usual, when we have nothing else, we bring out the artistic drawings, and then try to pass them off as scientific evidence. lol

Yes it's flight ability is debated, so if there was real hard evidence, there would be no debate. So it appers what you believe about this bird is really up to the toss of a coin. However, this would not be considered good science.
My beliefs are based on facts, not guess work, or blind faith. The only thing that can be said for sure is this was a bird that could fly. How well it could fly, is up for debate.

Ok, don't listen to answersingenesis, consider Nature magazine, they will tell you the same thing. "with every new Archaedpteryx fossil discovery it was realized that the animal cannot have been half-bird and half-reptile."
Or maybe Science Magazine, "True birds have existed at least as long as Archaeopteryx, so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor."

Well as usual, when we have nothing else, we bring out the artistic drawings, and then try to pass them off as scientific evidence. lol

Ok, don't listen to answersingenesis, consider Nature magazine, they will tell you the same thing. "with every new Archaedpteryx fossil discovery it was realized that the animal cannot have been half-bird and half-reptile."
Or maybe Science Magazine, "True birds have existed at least as long as Archaeopteryx, so that the latter could hardly have been their ancestor."

I have asked before, where does it say this?

Like clay figurines.

Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677 Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted. Two crow sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found... a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. and tend to confirm what many paleontologist have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds.

News in science
"It appears that the early ancestors of modern birds lived lifestyles that today we would stereotype as being duck-like, heron-like, loon-like."
Spectacular 100-million-year-old fossils, complete with three-dimensional bones, feathers and foot webbing, suggest living birds evolved from waterfowl, say researchers.
News in Science - Scientists catch the early bird - 16/06/2006

Time will show that birds did not evolove from dinosaurs, but from other birds. And birds such as the Archaeopteryx will also be shown not to be a missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds.

Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677 Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted. Two crow sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found... a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. and tend to confirm what many paleontologist have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds.

News in science
"It appears that the early ancestors of modern birds lived lifestyles that today we would stereotype as being duck-like, heron-like, loon-like."
Spectacular 100-million-year-old fossils, complete with three-dimensional bones, feathers and foot webbing, suggest living birds evolved from waterfowl, say researchers.
News in Science - Scientists catch the early bird - 16/06/2006

Time will show that birds did not evolove from dinosaurs, but from other birds. And birds such as the Archaeopteryx will also be shown not to be a missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds.

Gansus is a genus of aquatic birds that lived during the Albian stage of the Early Cretaceous period (around 110 million years ago) in what is now Gansu province, western China. It is the oldest-known of the Ornithurae, the group which includes modern birds (Neornithes) and extinct related groups, such as Ichthyornithes and Hesperornithes.

Gansus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ornithurae (meaning "bird tails" in Greek) is the name of a natural group of birds coined by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. Haeckel included in the group all "true birds" with the "characteristic tail morphology of all extant birds" (translation by Gauthier). This distinguishes the group from Archaeopteryx, which Haeckel placed in another new group called Sauriurae. Said simply, modern birds have short tails, while Archaeopteryx has a long tail like that of theropod dinosaurs.

Ornithurae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There also happens to be a forty million year hole between Archaeopteryx and Gansus. Archaeopteryx existed 150 million years ago... Gansus only 100.

News in science is not a scientific journal.

The fact of the matter is the archeopteryx represents the transition from reptiles to birds and yes, it isn't the only or the first species to show this transition but it is one of the most well known examples of this. There are species that have a more balanced distribution of reptile and avian characteristics such as the Rahonavis (Rahonavis: Information from Answers.com)

Archaeopteryx existed 150 million years ago if you believe that, I don't. Yet a new discovery in a Dockum formation near Post Texas, by Sankar Chatterjee. Sankar found two crow sized birds that have been dated to 225 million years old. And these birds are more birdlike than Archaeopteryx. Thus Archaeopteryx couldn't be the ancestor of birds if a more modern type bird has been found, and is 75 million years older. I believe the name of these birds found is Protoavis.

The fact is a recent discovery at the Dockum Formation near Post Texas by Sankar Chatterjee, reveals two crow size birds that have been dated to 225 million years old. These birds are more birdlike than Archaeopteryx. Thus Archaeopteryx could not be the ancestor of birds if a more modern type of bird has been found, and it is 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. The name of the new bird in question is Protoavis.

You mean this thing?





How many modern birds do you know that have a tail like that? Or a mouth like that? Or claws on their wings? This bird is more similar to archeopteryx than any modern bird.

It is an extinct bird, and todays science states it has more modern features than Archaeopteryx. It's not a matter of them looking like Archaeopteryx, it is a question of them being more advanced than Archaeopteryx. And because they are much older, yet more advanced, science has ruled out Archaeopteryx as being a transional. If Archeopteryx was a transional, it would be going in the oppsite direction of Evolution. lol

It's not a matter of them looking like Archaeopteryx, it is a question of them being more advanced than Archaeopteryx.

You believe evolution has a "direction". It does not, at least not in your view of the concept. It tends towards the organisms best fitted for the environment, not the most complex or advanced. Remember, the whole thing is relative.

Science has not ruled out Archie as a transitional. Nor has it confirmed Proto as a bird. You're using blind faith instead of fact again.