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

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > 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 entire set of arguments at least two decades out of date?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?

Once again jabriol demonstrates nothing but his colossal stupidity.

How long evolution itself takes has nothing to do with the pace of
discovery of materials supporting evolution, so new material is being
published all the time. You, on the other hand, cannot seem to find a
thing to argue against it with that does not consist of argument from
incredulity, and you apparently cannot even find any of that that is
newer than a decade old!

Your evasion of actually dealing with this issue has been noted
world-wide

> > > 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,

Your URL refers to Longisquama insignis, but mentions nothing about
archaeopteryx.  Here is a URL that is more recent than the one you
quoted, which also talks about Longisquama insignis:
http://www.menunkatuck.org/pages/longis.html

Here is a quote:
"Critics of the current report think there is little evidence that the
appendages on Longisquama are feathers and find no other structures
that link this non-theropod reptile to the branch of dinosaurs that
are likely to have given rise to birds."

Now are you clued in to the value of recent data and of actually
following a developing story instead of obsessive-compulsively sucking
onto the first thing you see that *you* think supports your wacko view
of the universe and not letting go no matter what?

Now once again, the URL you gave had nothing whatsoever to do with
archaeopteryx, which is what is under discussion here, and as I have
repeatedly made clear: **REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS FOSSIL REPRESENTS
AN ANCESTOR OF BIRDS, IT WAS A MIX OF REPTILE-DINO/BIRD FEATURES**.

This discussion is about the existence of transitional (read
"intermediate") forms, not about the origin of birds.  Once again,
answer the question: Do you deny this fossil had a mix of features and
if you do, what is your evidence?  Forget about what it is labeled as
- we are talking about the features it actually exhibited.  Can you
grasp that?  Deal with that.

Regardless of what archaeopteryx was called, the mix of features was
pretty much fifty-fifty.  It was classified as a bird because it has
to be classified as something.  The presence of feathers is what
overshadowed other considerations when it was decided to place it with
the birds, but the mix of features is undeniable.  Have you got that
now?  Do you deny this mix?  If so, once again, where is your
evidence?  That was the issue.  That was the question.  Deal with the
issue.  Answer the question, or this will be yet another example of
the way you evade dealing with direct questions.  You can blather all
the argument you wish, but your endless evasion of follow-up
consistently undermines everything you try to establish.  Got that,
Moron?

Now I have a URL for you:
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/birddivresources/evolhist.html

Just like yours, it is a .EDU, but unlike yours, it actually discusses
archeopteryx.  Here is a quote:

"Archaeopteryx is unlike modern birds in retaining some primitive
conditions shared with dinosaurs and other reptiles: teeth in jaw,
curved backward; snout rather than a bill; small braincase
(intermediate in relative body size between modern reptiles and modern
birds) with large olfactory lobes; abdominal ribs or gastralia. The
caudal vertebrae are unfused, in London specimen, each with a pair of
feathers. This represents a reduction in tail size (as in birds);
there were twice that many in some dinosaurs. The scapula and coracoid
are fused in London specimen, but not in Solnhofen specimen. The
sternum shows no keel (as opposed to modern flying birds). There is
also no foramen triosseum between the coracoid, sternum and clavicles,
so no pulley for breast muscles to pull up the wing. It has unfused
carpals and metacarpals. No active flight was possible, as there are
no feather attachment bumps on the ulna. The pubis has a footplate;
the position of pubis (anterior, ventral, or posterior as in modern
birds) is questionable (loosely attached, perhaps bent posteriorly
after death; is somewhat ventral in fossils, the angle varies). Nearly
all these characters are the same as in coelosaurian dinosaurs, which
were apparently the ancestors of birds."

Did you get that last sentence?  "Nearly all these characters are the
same as in coelosaurian dinosaurs..."  QED.  You lose.  Deal with it
loser.

And once again, let's have a look at the "banter" that you snipped,
which was actually nothing of the sort, but a series of serious
challenges that **YOU HAVE ONCE AGAIN EVADED DEALING WITH BECAUSE YOU
KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE THEM**.  Here they are, and
they will not go away, because I will hound you on these endlessly
until you do deal with them, you weasel.

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?

> 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.

Now, once again, where is the list of colossal holes that you have
invented?  You do know what a list is, don't you?  Post a list right
here or admit there are no such holes.

Budikka