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.
I'm able to post without calling you names. I would expect the same consideration.
You make the point yourself in your post that there is an evolutionary sequence involving each of those critters. It's in your post. You even have commentary pointing out the evolutionary changes to us dolts.
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.
Thanks, I will. This is the faculty page for Dr. Allan Feduccia. Dr. Feduccia teaches at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an expert in the field of avian evolution. The webpage says :
"Alan Feduccia's research centers on the origin and early evolution of flight, feathers, and endothermy. He is also interested in the evolution of birds through the Tertiary, the origins of flightlessness and the evolution of other morphological specializations in the world avifauna, and avian systematics in general."
The page has references that state:
His new book The Origin and Evolution of Birds was the lead science book for Yale University Press for the fall of 1996, and winner of the 1996 Scholarly and Professional Publishing Award of the Association of American Publishers. Feduccia has recently published cover articles in Science and Naturwissenschaften, and the former was listed in Discover Magazine's top 50 news stories of 1993, and in Science News' science news of the year.
Undoubtedly he is an expert in the field. Yet he thinks that your evolutionary sequence is not correct. His views are best summed up in this article..
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?
Well clue me in sport. Obviously I'm not understanding something here. How many years transpired between Caudipteryx and Archaeopteryx and what tests can you show me that prove it?
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.
Minus the (5? 10? 15?) actual fossils and how the scientists interpret them, what is the huge amount of actual evidence?