Ichneumons stunning post on transitionals is deeply flawed. His source posits that Archaeopteryx evolved from Caudipteryx. However, there are evolutionary avian experts who posit the exact opposite...that Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx. Now obviously we're talking about a disagreement in fossil dating that spans hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. This means that fossil dating, outside of guessing based on how the fossil looks, is a very inexact science. It's so inexact, that one persons guess is as good as another and there's no clear or definitive way to know who is right. With that in mind, my guess about how these fossils are related is just as good as the experts. Do you agree?
I wouldn't answer your post if I were Ichneumon. If all you you can do is bring up one controversy out of all that he posted, then you've already lost the argument.
Throw out Archaeoperyx entirely if you want. The rest of the evidence still stands.
Not really. His post posits that Archaepteryx is representative of the more birdlike part of the transition. Caudipteryx, which lived later, is representative of what an ancestor of Archaeopteryx might have resembled. Basically, Archy occurs out of logical order in the fossil record.
Some people do think that the Chinese feathered dinos "devolved" (I hate that word) from more avian stock, but that's not widely credited. Why? That cladogram in Ichneumon's post. It makes more sense of the wealth of data we have to think Caudi is a revealing throwback to the common ancestor of Caudi and Archy.
Even if the minority are right, you have to wonder what a theropod dinosaur, almost standard issue except for the feathers, is doing "devolving" from a bird if the bird didn't come from saurian stock in the first place. You can't devolve if you didn't E-volve. You can't be a throwback if there's nothing to throw back too.
What are you doing, covering your eyes and ears? We are and have been very vocal.
Ichneumons stunning post on transitionals is deeply flawed.
No it isn't.
His source posits that Archaeopteryx evolved from Caudipteryx.
No it doesn't. Learn how to read a cladistic tree, you dolt. It says that Caudipteryx's ancestors split off from the Archaeopteryx lineage prior to the splitting off of the families which appear between them in the tree.
However, there are evolutionary avian experts who posit the exact opposite...that Caudipteryx evolved from Archaeopteryx.
Feel free to name them, and cite their research to that effect.
Now obviously we're talking about a disagreement in fossil dating that spans hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
No we're not. You really haven't a clue as to how cladistic trees are constructed, or read, have you?
This means that fossil dating, outside of guessing based on how the fossil looks, is a very inexact science.
No it doesn't -- it means you haven't the first clue what you're talking about.
It's so inexact, that one persons guess is as good as another and there's no clear or definitive way to know who is right.
This is your fantasy, anyway.
With that in mind, my guess about how these fossils are related is just as good as the experts. Do you agree?
No, because a) cladistic trees are based on a huge amount of actual evidence, not "guesses", and b) your own "guess" is highly unlikely to be "as good as another" because you're a complete idiot when it comes to biology.