IOW, since the evidence isn't conclusive, we should ignore it until conclusive evidence is found? Well, isn't this fiendish? I say "Yes," referring to the jumbled and squashed pile of bones that is Protoavis, and you pounce to throw out the entire body of science since 1859. Cute!
An example of a specimen (Archaeopteryx) in rather better shape. (And it's only one of several just for that particular species.)
What don't you understand? Is what you are doing logic? Is this even argument?
Get some good evidence for whatever you have to replace it. For that matter, get a theory that says something about the world. Then come back to me with what you think is well-founded and what you think is conjectural.
ME: IOW, since the evidence isn't conclusive, we should ignore it until conclusive evidence is found?YOU:Well, isn't this fiendish? I say "Yes," referring to the jumbled and squashed pile of bones that is Protoavis, and you pounce to throw out the entire body of science since 1859. Cute!
In truth I said or implied none of that. You seemed to sense it coming, though, no doubt because it is a fairly glaring problem for you.
I don't think you sensed this one coming: What is the objective uniform criteria for determining whether a fossil is conclusive evidence or not?
Answer: If it fits the biases of the evolutionary model, it is objective and conclusive. If not, it obviously cannot be conclusive.