That's actually the only one I've looked at in any kind of depth at all. By "depth" I mean ten minutes of internet research...which is all it took to show the major problem with dating "transistional" fossils. BTW, did you know that Bill Clinton is married to a transistional fossil?
Throw out Archaeoperyx entirely if you want. The rest of the evidence still stands.
lol...that's pretty scientific. Throw out the evidence that doesn't agree with the conclusion you want to make. That's pretty handy.
Throw out the evidence that's under dispute. If the sequence of Archaeoperyx was firm, then you might have an issue, but it's not.
And even if you were right, evolution isn't a steady progression from a to z. It's two steps forward, one back. Observing the one back step doesn't invalidate the argument that there's stepping going on.