Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> Archaeopteryx meanwhile continues to be the subject of serious
> scholarship and causes dispute among scientists who do not question
> its authenticity. In an article published in the Zoological Journal of
> the Linnean Society in 1984 (Vol. 82, pp. 119-158)

Almost 20 years ago.  Do you actually have anything recent or is your
entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?

> and called "The
> avian relationship of Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds", R. A.
> Thulborn argues that Archaeopteryx is not, in fact, a bird at all!

It was a fifty-fifty dino-bird mix.  A transitional form.  The very
thing that you have lied does not exist.  That's the whole point about
it and what I have been repeatedly saying.  When are you going to deal
with that instead of flapping your arms around like a startled bird? 
When are you going to deal with the callenges that are presented to
you instead of throwing out straw men as fast as you can throw them
together?  The archaeopteryx, regardless of what it was ancestral to,
was a fifty-fifty mix of dino and bird featues.

Answer these questions:

1. Do you deny that the archaopteryx is a 50-50 dino-bird mix?

2. If so what is your refutation?

3.  If not, what has happened to your assertion that there are no
transitionals and that reptiles\dinos could not have evolved into
birds?

> He believes that there may not, in fact, be any 'missing link' between
> dinosaurs and birds to be discovered in the fossil record but that
> birds may have arisen by means of a 'saltative' change between the two
> groups. By this he means a sudden and abrupt evolutionary change
> rather than the gradual and progressive kind advocated by Darwin.

So Jabriol finally admits to evolution.  QED.  You lose.  Deal with it
Loser.

> > Why do we have almost identical DNA to chimpanzees if we are not both
> > related to a common ancestor?  Why is mouse DNA so close to ours if we
> > are not connected?
>
> 75% of our DNA is shared with a banana.

Do you have a reference for this, or is this yet one more in a
tediously endless line of Jabriol Lies(TM)?  **GIVE A REFERENCE** for
this or admit this is yet another lie.  And answer the question intead
of throwing out yet more pathetically inadequate straw men in the
desperate hope that your absurd lies and cluelessness will be somehow
masked.

Do you deny that chimps are genetically closer to humans than they are
to other great apes?

> snip with the rest of asinine assumption in genetics...
> so we all have the same build material.
> 
> so does a porcelain vase, with floor tiles...

Right - a porcelain vase has the same DNA structure as a human.  What
a completely fucked up Moron you are.

Budikka