Sheesh, I can't beleive people are still trying to do research with Archaeopteryx. It's a fraud... a faked fossil!
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.html
You are citing a creationist website as scientific evidence? What a joke!
They don't do science, they do apologetics.
Nope, it's not:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html
"The authoritative rebuttal of this view comes in a paper published in Science (Vol 232, 2 May, 1986, pp. 622-625) by Alan Charig, Frank Greenaway, Angela Milner, Cyril Walker and Peter Whybrow unequivocally entitled Archaeopteryx Is Not a Forgery. Their arguments are technical and detailed but in essence they show that there is no evidence of such 'doctoring' of the slab; that mineral-filled hairline fissures extend from the feathers and into the bones of the animal rpoving that they are from one and the same source; that minerological evidence conclusively shows that the slab and counterslab connect together and that differences in sedimentary texture between the two are perfectly in keeping with such deposits and the ways in which they are created. They point out that in addition there are remains of five Archaeopteryx discovered at different times and places and under well documented conditions. In only one of these specimens is the state of preservation such that the presence of feathers cannot unequivocally be established."
Even AIG says it isn't a fraud. Of course, they ignore all it's transitional features, and call it a "True Bird"...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp
Do you realize that paper by Taylor is from the 1993 International Creation Conference?
Got any idea why Taylor has been unable, in well over a decade (or two decades since Hoyle and Wickramasinghe originally posited this claim in 1986) to convince hardly any other creationists of his hoax theory, with the vast majority of creationists insisting that Archaeopteryx is just a bird, and a completely genuine fossil? For example.
Taylor has only been able to convice a few of the meanest cranks among creationists, e.g. Kent Hovind. Why is this?
You really should research your beliefs before you post them as fact.