Replies

Ichneumon is not saying Archaeopteryx is descended from Caudipteryx. You might as well be asking "Why are there still monkeys?"
Sorry, but Ichy clearly makes the point (shouts the point) that these are transistional fossils on the way from dinosaurs to birds.
They show the transition. A whole group of dinosaurs got increasingly birdlike. It's a whole branch growing in the "bird" direction.

Ah...I see. So then in fact the fossils Ichy presented are not really transitional fossils, but fossils that merely show a transition? The actual fossils used aren't the important thing?

There's a huge preponderance of opinion that birds are descended from theropods.

There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature. You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point. For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.

"There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature. You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point. For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.

Thankfully, science is not defined by appeal to popularity.

Ah...I see. So then in fact the fossils Ichy presented are not really transitional fossils, but fossils that merely show a transition? The actual fossils used aren't the important thing?

Looks rather twisty-shouty. You can never tell if fossil A is the direct ancestor of fossil B even if it is older and everything looks right. You might find a better contemporary candidate for direct ancestry later. That's just how it is.

It still means something if you find a fossil series that morphs like movie frames, even if one frame is seemingly out of order. You consistently decline to explain why such a thing exists at all if it doesn't mean what most scientists think it does.

There's a huge preponderance of opinion that God created man and every living creature.

A lot of scientists who accept evolution are in that statistic. Strawman.

You'll have to do better than that if you want to make a scientific point.

Why don't you try doing better? I am citing the preponderance of opinion in science. You are citing one Alan Feduccia, last I saw. Except Feduccia does think birds evolved from reptiles only it was archosaurs. He thinks so precisely because he can make a case for it based on some morphological similarities. His problem is that the same logic makes a far better case for theropods. Your problem is you don't accept any of this logic at all and have no real horse to put in the race except your unwillingness to understand.

For example, there is NOT a huge preponderance of opinion that says 2+2=5 or that a water molecule is composed of 5 parts of carbon.

Indeed there is not. Were you composing in a hurry? Let me try again: There is a huge preponderance of evidence and opinion in science that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You were asking why it isn't settled. It's basically settled. There are always a few tenacious borderline-crackpot types in science. Lots of people work in that area and we don't screen for sanity.