Randman's challenge answered

Even though randman's recent challenge is a worthless attempt at an argument from silence, in order to shut him up I am posting the following response to his challenge:

1. Compsognathus
2. Deinonychus
3. Archaeopteryx
4. Enantiornithes
5. Ichthyornis

Now can we please move on?

Now, this is a hoot. I spent hours of listening to evolutionists admit this was impossible, and now one of you claims to have done it.
Please state where the fossils were found, as originally requested, and more info so we can evaluate the differences between the species to try and determine if these species could have indeed evolved one from another.

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/...21/justin.html

http://www.herbaria.harvard.edu/rese...eoflife/birds/

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/im...y_of_birds.htm

http://www3.uakron.edu/biology/peter...rster_etal.pdf

http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swan...th/lec1_2.html

http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swan...th/lec3_4.html

I never said it was impossible, just that it was not proof that they didn't exist if one couldn't and that most of us just don't keep that info within five seconds reach.

Now what questions did you have about them and we'll see if someone can work on the answers.

Oh thanks Livefree and Thebear, I was at work and couldn't dig up the info last night.

I never said that - I said *I* couldn't do it, and that, if it weren't possible, it wouldn't diminish the relevance of archy as evidence for common descent.

LOL. First of all, these are not considered the preceding and next 2 species respectively. Secondly, should I quote the words "impossible" and "unfair" that some of you are backtracking on.
Please at least be honest.

So, you admit that, in fact, you're not looking for evidence of a path, but for adjacent mileposts.

This pretty much demonstrates conclusively that you know that you have no point; you're just trying to make trouble by presenting something that looks to the ill-educated like you've found a "flaw".

I admit that I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim, that Archy evolved from something and into something, and to do so by specifically documenting the species it came from and reportedly evolved into so that this evidence can be evaluated.
No, I am not looking for an imginary path that I believe in regardless fo the data. I am looking for the data that shows these "transitional" fossils actually transitioned into something.
Obviously, the most famous "transitional" fossil may have in fact not transitioned into anything.
I suggest you remind your buddies at TalkOrigins and elsewhere to make that clear to their readers when they claim there are hundreds if not thousands of "transitional" fossils.
Just remind them that there is no evidence these species evolved into another species at all.
Please.
Otherwise, you are basically trying to deceive the public.

The claim is that Archy looks just like what one would expect to find somewhere if birds evolved from reptiles. The exact details of what it evolved from and to are irrelevant; the Bible is unambiguous on creation, and if it wasn't 6 literal days, and all the animals at once, then the story is *NOT ACTUALLY TRUE*.

At this point, unless you have a better explanation, the default explanation is, and always will be, that archy is a transitional form.

You have not offered a better explanation.

I didn't know you could prove something in science (by default) by attacking the Bible, but hey, evolution isn't science, is it?