"no controversy"??? The whole article is about the controversy surrounding the the archaeopteryx! Did you actually read the article or just paste it?
The author, Nedin, has a virtual university that sports the Motto of Knowledge * Wisdom * Beer (The gaining of wisdom through knowledge under the influence of a really good beer.) Where as I agree with the author on his beer liking, I doubt he is being very serious. His page doesn't even indicate a degree in anything resembling an evolutionary science. Though not a prerequisite to contribute to this discussion, wouldn't we do better citing acutal scientists? Or maybe not. Whatever.
Since you have graciously pasted the entire diatribe defending the assertion that archaeopteryx is a "transitional" fossil, I'll not reprint it for you. However, you need to read the article. It cites, in numerous places, other evolutionists research that contradicts his points and attempts to refute those arguments. Good tactic but it proves my point: EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS DON'T EVEN AGREE ON ARCHAEOPTERYX! How is that NOT controversy and disagreement? If you can't see that, we obviously don't use the same definitions for those words.
An even bigger controversy should be that we still have this creature in our textbooks as "proof" of transitional fossils. I'm not claiming to know what that creature is or isn't, but I'd expect our leading research scientists to at least semi-agree on this important fossil.
I didn't post it for your benefit.
Interesting discussion bttt
To answer, Yes Chris Nedin has been a fully qualified PhD University prof. He's also an Australian (inserts Monty Python philosophy department at the University of woolloomooloo Bruces sketch here).
And I fail to see your argument. It's because Archaeopteryx IS transitional that there can be debate over which side of the imaginary dividing line between the dinosaur and bird "kind" it should be put.