Explain to me why you are right. All you've done is beg reason. You haven't presented a factual transition from one state to another. You have not presented a lizard changing to a bird. It's a bird. Whatever odd characteristics it might seem to have, it is a bird. I'm sorry, but that is not a transition. You point to it hoping people will buy it as a transition; but, then what do you do with the platypus? Right. It defies categorization because you categorized by what seamed reasonable to you. When you find something that defies your categorization, is it your method, or the thing your method is applied to that is at fault.
You can't explain how entire complex systems just appear out of nowhere. Lungs require integration into the nervous system and the circulatory system and must be integrated to fit in a cavity that makes room for it, must also have support mechanisms (new musculature) to provide for their function (ie the diaphram), must have a similar coding in the brain that regulates the function, etc. This is a massive leap which you can't show happening. Even one part of the mix, and I've been general in my listing, even one part would take a miracle, but the whole ball of wax happening would be so far beyond miraculous as the odds stack up that probability must fall to arguments of likelihood. Occam.. remember. And a transition in this point that failed to incorporate even one of the required changes isn't a partially working organism - it's dead.
Anything short of a 100% functional change that incorporates everything needed to make the thing functional results in death - either due to the obvious in this case - the animal dies because it can't breath - or do to selection - the animal can't survive it's environs and is actually picked out of the pack and becomes a pariah because it's different.
Transitional fossils should show us a critter with different stages of a developing wing - which again, cuts across multiple biological systems and functions. 1/5 of a wing don't make a bird. But you have nothing showing wings developing on mice to make a bat, or the like. This is nothing you guys aren't aware of. But you have to down play what's missing and play slight of hand otherwise.
Your problem. Not mine.
For what it's worth, bats aren't rodents nor did they descend from rodents.
What is your take on the leg remnants that appear on Boa Contrictors?
You're moving the goalposts in the usual Creationist manner. You asked for a transitional form. I gave you one. I stated it has characteristics of both reptiles and birds, and therefore is a reasonable example of a transitional form between them. Now you're demanding that I show something else.
Sorry, I've been doing this too long to buy into your bait and switch. You said there were no transitional forms. You either retract that statement, or explain why, given that it has reptilian as well as avian characteristics, Archeopteryx is not what one would expect of a form transitional between reptiles and birds. Let's deal with this before we address the platypus.