wrong answer, because it had some of these characteristics doesnt make it a former or partial dino of any kind, there are birds today who have teeth too, big deal.... Try reading the article, son, then get back to us when you have some actual knowledge to base your wild guesses on.
we all have heard feduccia, even he knows it was a bird, and never was anything other than a bird....
Gosh, really? Let's see what Feduccia actually said about Archaeopteryx, instead of what the out-of-context quote-mining creationists try to make it sound like he said, shall we?
"The creature thus memorialized [in fossil form] was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian. The forearms that once held feathers ended in three fingers with sharp, recurved claws. The Archaeopteryx is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two groups of living organisms -- what has come to be called a "missing link", a Rosetta stone of evolution."
-- from Feduccia's "Origin and Evolution of Birds", Chapter 1 page 1.
Here, have a look at the actual page:
And if *that's* not enough, Feduccia repeats his position on page 29 as well:
Gosh, now when Feduccia has made his opinion that Archaeopteryx is "perfectly intermediate" between reptiles and modern birds so clear,
why would you want to grossly misrepresent his actual position to try to pretend that he supports your "it's just a plain bird, it's not an intermediate, nothing to see here, move along" BS? Do you think that dishonestly using Feduccia as a sock puppet for your own errors is going to make you look somehow more competent or honest? If so, you're sadly mistaken. Furthermore, you've given Feduccia grounds to sue you, because falsely putting such a grossly incompetent claim in his mouth could damage his professional reputation. Would you like to retract your horse crap now?
"The creature thus memorialized [in fossil form] was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian. The forearms that once held feathers ended in three fingers with sharp, recurved claws. The Archaeopteryx is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two groups of living organisms -- what has come to be called a "missing link", a Rosetta stone of evolution."What year was that written?
Before he said this?:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur,” Feduccia says. “But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Allan Feduccia, Professor of biology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms”, Science, Vol. 259, 5 February 1993, p. 764
Casey Luskin attended his lecture in 2004 and had this to say about Feduccia's main points:
*Archaeopteryx is a true bird.
*"Dinofuzz" is nothing more than collagenic fibers found on many other fossils.
*Today's highly touted "Feathered Dinosaurs" are a myth: some fossils (i.e. Caudipteryx) have flight-feathers but they aren't really dinos--they are secondarily flightless birds
*Birds have digits 2-3-4, and theropods have digits 1-2-3. This is powerful evidence that birds couldn't have evolved from theropod dinos. Also, the theropod --> bird hypothesis requires that birds evolved flight from the ground-up. If Caudipteryx has feathers but not for flight, Feduccia finds this explanation quite tenuous. Put simply, ground-up proponents say feathers were pre-adapted for flight but evolved originally for insulation. This is silly because feathers are perfectly suited for flight, and very energetically costly to produce. If insulation was all that was needed, hair would have done the job just fine and would NOT have been nearly so costly. It strains credibility to say feathers evolved for insulation. Feduccia prefers Microraptor as an ancestor of birds because he likes the trees-down hypothesis, not the ground-up hypothesis.
*If birds didn't come from theropods, this does leave a rather large time-gap where there is essentially no fossil documentation of exactly what sort of dinos or other reptiles from which birds would have evolved.
*(I personally hope people might consider "Option C,"--that perhaps birds did not evolve from dinosaurs or other reptiles.)
From here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1275
Out of curiosity, what "out-of-context" quote did wbmstr24 "mine?"