[Boiler Plate]

As we have already seen, this is simply not true--the skeletons are so reptilian in character that two of them were actually mis-identified as reptiles for several decades, and study of the cranial structure has shown it to be much more reptilian than avian.

This is from Dr. Sankar Chatterjee of the Univ. of Texas

"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. "

So is Archaeopteryx a transitional species? Apparently not by 75 million years. Of course Dr. Chatterjee may be a charlatan as well seeing as he admits to the difficulty of proving the evolution of birds.

"Although birds are one of the best-known groups of living vertebrates, their origin, evolution, and early adaptive radiation are poorly documented in the fossil record."

Fortunately you can fill in the gaps with some more of your delightful "Bruce the Air Grabbing Bi-ped" stories.

Regards,
Boier Plate

[atlaw]

"Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers." Did Chatterjee really say this? And if so, is there some context for the quote that is missing? I knew Chatterjee was kind of flakey, but I figured he was mostly just over-enthusiastic about his own find.

[VadeRetro]

[Quoting from Chatterjee]

"For years, Archaeopteryx was considered to be the oldest bird known, but its position has recently been usurped by Protoavis texensis from the Late Triassic Dockum Group of Texas, predating Archaeopteryx by 75 million years (Chatterjee 1987a, 1991, 1994, 1995, in press; Kurochkin 1995; Peters 1994). Identification of Archaeopteryx as a bird is a simple task because Archaeopteryx possesses feathers. "

So is Archaeopteryx a transitional species? Apparently not by 75 million years. Of course Dr. Chatterjee may be a charlatan as well seeing as he admits to the difficulty of proving the evolution of birds.

Simple non sequitur. Chatterjee is not proving your point. Worse, I have already quoted Flank in great detail refuting exactly Gish's claim that Archaeopteryx "isn't a transitional" because it had feathers. That is, what about all the reptilian features it has which no modern bird shares?

Furthermore, since the Chinese feathered dinosaurs of the late 90s--specifically Caudipteryx and Protoarchaeopteryx--feathers are no longer considered diagnostic exclusively of birds. Thus, even the lawyerly escape hatch you and Gish are trying to use has been closed for years. Get the latest Scientific American, the one on newstands now, and stop trying to "prove" your point by stumbling through the world oblivious to scientific fact and what has been said to you so far.

[VadeRetro]

I might as well mention that you don't refute Archaeopteryx with Protoavis, either. At least read the thread you're on, if you don't read anything else!

[VadeRetro]

This has feathers.

It is absolutely, positively a dinosaur. It is absolutely, postively, not a bird. You and Gish need another "disproof of transitional fossils."