From Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?
Today the important issue seems to be specifically which dinosaurs are the closest relatives of birds. The controversy over the dinosaurian status of birds had its heyday in the 1970's, but the coverage of the issue today by the press might make you think it was still a problematic matter. For those that have actually seen the relevant specimens and considered all of the relevant data (which is a basic procedure for any scientist), it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw the line between "bird" and "non-avian dinosaur"....
One proposed difficulty is the gap in the fossil record between the first known bird (Late Jurassic) and the dromaeosaurs, probable sister group of birds (Early Cretaceous). This overlooks the blatant fact that other maniraptoran coelurosaurs, such as Ornitholestes, Coelurus, and Compsognathus, are known from strata of Late Jurassic age. If other maniraptorans were there, it logically follows that the ancestors of dromaeosaurs were there. Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs are also known from the Late Jurassic.
...
Without its feathers, Archaeopteryx looks much like a small coelurosaur such as a dromaeosaurid or troodontid. The facts are resoundingly in support of a maniraptoran origin for birds; certainly a theropodan origin at the very least.
Yep when data contrary to what Darwininians believe is incomplete it is a weakness. When there is a hole in the data that Darwininans believe it is quickly filled in with something "imaginary". That is just a rephrasing of -- If I tie A and B together then the common point exists. The fact is Archie is still older than any other feathered fossil and the feathers it has are fairly advanced. There are other creatures with possible feathers but these are deemed plant fronds because to consider them feathers would put a big crimp in the Darwininian view of things. Again, the fact is Archie is older than any other feathered fossil.