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

"Budikka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [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 entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?


yup.. but nothing has changed... doesnt evolution takes a loooooong time eh?

>
> > 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.


nope it was a bird... it is called a bird,

and there is evidence that birds existed way before

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jun00/birds.htm
CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest
animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of
birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious
question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and
birds.







notice  a non creationistn site.

if you were up to date.. I wouldnt have to snip the remaining repetive usual
banter.