I really appreciate all the hard work with the copying and pasting from TalkOrigins. com.
Notice how he doesn't address a single word of the evidence presented?
A lot of imagination and speculation put into it.
Still not seeing him address any of the evidence presented.
It's a good way to save wear and tear on your brain.
Cute. Not addressing any of the evidence presented and pathetically attempting to be condescending.
But all of that hard work does not trump the comments from paleornithologist, Alan Feduccia, whom specializes in the origins and phylogeny of birds...
Bahahahah! An
opinion "trumps" actual facts??? Wow, just wow. I know that Creationists are big on authority, and not so much on evidence, but I have never seen such a naked display of that fact in quite some time. What makes the quotes you clearly, and ironically, (after talking smack about citing Talk Origins) cribbed from a Creationist site hilarious is that you quoted Feduccia's Achilles heel. His problem is that he long ago staked out a position, which you paraphrase:
The fact is... birds have feathers... dinosaurs don't...
20 years ago and the more evidence we find that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs the greater mental gymnastics Feduccia has to engage in to hold his entrenched position. I realize in your mind as an authority what he says is "fact" but he's just one guy with a maverick opinion that he's holding onto only because of his obstinacy and pride.
Dinosaurs of a Feather | Science | Smithsonian
a number of coelurosaurian dinosaurs, such as Anchironis, Microraptor and others, have been preserved with more complex feathers that more closely approximate those seen on living birds. These structures cannot be simply cast off as collagen fibers or other quirks of preservation, and so Feduccia makes a strange argument. Microraptor and kin are not dinosaurs, Feduccia argues, but are instead birds that lost the ability to fly and were molded into the form of dinosaurs through a circuitous evolutionary pathway. By employing a very narrow definition of what a feather is, and by asserting that only birds can have feathers, Feduccia tries to rearrange evolutionary relationships through semantics.
Let me parse that out for you.
1. Feduccia has dug in on his position that only birds have feathers.
2. The discovery of dinosaur fossils with feathers shows that he is incorrect.
3. His response is to claim that they aren't dinosaurs, but actually are birds that have lost the ability to fly and changed morphologically to look like dinosaurs.
Do you see the problem with that?