[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinBytes It seems that Archaeopteryx is in trouble again. Not only are there problems linking Archaeopteryx to theropods,

Actually, there are no problems in linking Archaeopteryx to theropods, since Archaeopteryx is, quite clearly, a theropod. It's skeleton is almost identical to Compsognathus, a theropod found in the same quarry as Archaeopteryx. It makes one wonder what you are talking about. But it is typical for scientific illiterates who are more influenced by what their mythology allows to offer assertion without any support.

Quote by: MerlinBytes ...there is no link from it to any modern birds.

Why is that meaningful? It seems that you continue in your ignorance of science, what it is and how it works, most especially evolutionary theory.

Quote by: MerlinBytes Martin (1985, p. 182) states: "Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds. It has specializations in its tarsometatarsus and skull which show conclusively that it is on a side branch of avian evolution."

What a totally inadequate cite. There was a Martin mentioned in a quote of Wells on the first page, otherwise we have no idea of your source. But the quote on the first page claims that Martin made a similar statement in 1982. Here, you say it was in 1985. You are even dumb enough to cite the page without citing the book. It is clear that you are being a parrot again. Which of your creationist masters did you get this from. Wouldn't it be nice if you took the time to learn what science is and how it works before you speak? Wouldn't it be nice if you learned how to cite an authority correctly? Maybe I'm used to reading what scientists write and I am being too tough on a scientific illiterate.

But this incompletely cited (and therefore unknown) quote indicates that paleontologists were telling people that Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to modern birds about 20 years ago. And yet you and other scientifically illiterate creationists are still harping on that point as if it were meaningful. Exactly how would that have any bearing on the status of Archaeopteryx as a transitional species? It seems not. You didn't even know the correct word and used some illiterate nonsense jabberwocky like "transitionary" or "transitionatory". Further, you have been asked to define the term and you have failed to do so. All you did was babble some nonsense about modern man and claiming that there was some sort of debate about what the word means. The debate is between creationists like you, who want to misrepresent what the term means to shore up your mythology. There is no debate - the word does not indicate that one species is ancestral to another. Learn what you are talking about.

And since you want to throw in some technical terms, you no doubt can discuss the tarsometatarsus of Archaeopteryx when compared to some of the modern scansorial birds. I guess you aren't aware that the leg bones and the feet bones were generally elongated with similar proportions to those of terrestrial avepods. The degree of elongation of the distal bones of the feet is quite similar to that found in pigeons.

Quote by: MerlinBytes So, also, where then are the intermediates lying on the main branch? Answer there are none. ho hum.

Meaningful because? Where are all of you ancestors going back to Adam and Eve? Since you can't tell me it must mean that you are not descended from Adam and Eve. No doubt. If you're not going to learn the science before you try to discuss it, at least have the integrity to apply the same standards to your mythology.