Since it didn't transition into anything it is hardly a transitionary animal. It apparently is a mutant to nowhere. So far none of the questions answered at the beginning were answered by any of the Kings Horses or any of the Kings Men. Where are those transitional fossils let alone the missing link.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Shalom Israel
No. It's not fake at all.
But the interesting thing is, those antievolutionists who claim that Archaeopteryx is fake (specifically that the fossil impressions of feathers are faked) claim that the creature is really just an ordinary dinosaur, i.e. a reptile, and not a bird at all. At the same time antievolutionists who accept Archaeopteryx as a legitimate fossil creature (feathers and all) claim that it's 100% a bird, and not a reptile at all.
Funny thing, isn't it Bray, that antievolutionists are certain that Archaeopteryx is in no way transitional between reptiles and birds, but they can't agree which one it is, a reptile or a bird!
How would you explain that? And how would you explain that in conjunction with your denial that Archaeopteryx is transitional between reptiles and birds?
After all, what better definition for a transitional fossil could there possibly be than one for which a case can be made to put it either in group "A" or group "B," whereas those groups are utterly discontinuous and non-overlapping with respect to living organisms? And indeed Archaeopteryx DOES have both distinctive characteristics of reptiles (which no modern bird possesses) AND distinctive characteristics of birds (which no modern reptile possesses).
And if you unreservedly deny transitional status to just such a fossil, then haven't you moved the goal post so far back that you've put yourself out of the game entirely?