Ahh, but you see, I did not bring it up. It was used in the argument that the sequence is Sino-Caudi-Archie. Fossil evidence does not show that as far as dating is concerned. The Darwininian world is agog whenever a new "feathered" chinese fossil is "discovered". There is a problem with that. No fossil will ever be found in that strata that will be older than Archie.(even if that fossil were to have a certifed birth certificate in its claws and stating it was the parent of Archie)
I have not argued for a specific sequence, nor have I seen any claims that anyone knows what the specific ancestral sequence is. Creationists evidently intend to turn dino-bird evolution into horse evolution redux. They now quote one evolutionist after another saying that horse evolution was not a linear progression from eohippus to Mesohippus to Equus. (Wow! George Gaylord Simpson figured out back around 1944 that it's not a ladder, it's yet another tree. In fact, he's one of the people they quote.) Then they turn to us and say, "... and thus evolution is false."
You can still tell what diverged from what else by what converges as you go back in the fossil record. Birds and theropods visibly converge on each other as you go back until you can't tell what's what.