Replies

<< I've not seen this defense raised before. How far away from Haeckel does something have to be before it's a real fossil? Note that one specimen, mis-identified until 1970, was found in 1855, well before the 1861 London specimen. Three specimens were found after 1950. The preceding link also demolishes most creationist arguments related to Archaeopteryx. >>

The link demolishes the credibility of those who've dealt with archy:

<< The Feather >> - they actually count a feather as a separate specimen!

<< Huxley, who was a staunch "Darwinist" failed to recognise the true import of the fossil and merely remarked on it as a "reptile-like bird" >> (He was closer to the truth in the first place)

<< complete head, albeit badly crushed, >>

<< This specimen is of the torso only ... the specimen was found to be missing ... It's whereabouts remain unknown. >>

<< It (your pre-feather specimen) lay in a museum after being classified as Pterodactylus crassipes >> (If you look at your own link, this is one of the most incomplete specimens)

<< differs in other aspects such as the tooth structure and the poorly ossified shoulder bones >> (maybe it's not an Archy?)

<< First identified as Compsognathus, >> (Do they misidentify all of them?)

<< information is limited. The specimen has been classified as a new species >> (yet another misidentification)

You are putting a lot of stock in something that your evolutionary comrades have wrestled with for 100 years. Misclassifications, reclassifications, lost specimens, incomplete specimens, crushed specimens, and Huxley called it closest to the truth upon first examination.

<< The appearance of demaninding physical evidence is just posturing for the bystanders. Inferring (in the wrong direction) from physical evidence, no matter how plentiful or how detailed said evidence may be, is "conjecture." >>

The "posturing" is the evolutionists vainly trying to PRETEND something is transitional. Many, perhaps most, of your evolutionary comrades disagree with you on Archy being transitional. From Huxley to Olsen and Feduccia, and multitudes more, they believe it's a bird.

Lovely illustration of creationist "quote-science" in action. If one specimen is headless, and another has a crushed head, all are tarred with the same charge!

The "posturing" is the evolutionists vainly trying to PRETEND something is transitional. Many, perhaps most, of your evolutionary comrades disagree with you on Archy being transitional. From Huxley to Olsen and Feduccia, and multitudes more, they believe it's a bird.

1) What does it mean when something like that is "just a bird?" Why don't birds of today have so many, many, many reptilian characteristics? OK, they still have some. Many scientists say that they are coelurosaurs, after all.

2) Feduccia is an evolutionist who simply thinks the bird divergence came earlier. He argues for a more avian interpretation of some Archaeopteryx features but is not a "transitionals" denier. You similarly mischaracterize Huxley on the significance of Archaeopteryx. He considered it a bird, but a very reptilian one and thus evidence for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.

Confronted with evidence, you simply retreat behind a wall of see-nothing, think-nothing, Twist-and-Shout denial. So why ask for evidence in the first place?