no. it's not just one group but many. about 50% of them arent in the correct geologic layer. it's a lot. now: if a fossil in the correct layer is evidence for evolution, then a fossil in the wrong layer should by evidence against it.
I said nothing about it being just one group. We have found limited fossils in many of the lines. That was not my point.
On the dromeosaurids line that I was referring to, I mentioned that we found dromeosaurids that are distant cousin species of archaeopteryx, but as these are distant descendents from the common ancestor, that is not at all unexpected that they are after archy. Evolution says nothing about groups of dinosaurs not being able to continue certain features millions of years after birds started evolving different features.
Find me a modern mammal skeleton deep in the Jurasiac, then we can talk. Until then, a dromeosaurid after archy is nothing to be concerned about.
no. some features of thise fossil are clearly more bird-like then those of the
Archaeopteryx:
Protoavis - Wikipedia
"Though it existed far earlier than
Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like"
Can you explain how you got from their phrase "
allegedly more bird-like" to "
clearly more bird-like"? What justifies that jump?
The article you quote goes into detail of the poorly preserved evidence:
The post-cranial remains are as badly preserved, or worse, than the cranial elements, and their interpretation by Chatterjee
[10] are in many cases unsubstantiated or speculative. Of the postcranial skeleton, Chatterjee has isolated the axial skeleton as displaying a suite of avian characters, including
heterocoelus centra,
hypapophyses and reduction of the neural spines. First and foremost, the preservation quality of the vertebrae is poor. While the centra are modified, they do not appear to be truly heterocoelus.
[8] The presence of incipient hypapophyses in and of itself might be considered indicative of avian affinity, but their poor development and presence on vertebrae otherwise thoroughly non-avian, is most parsimoniously regarded as mild convergence until further material should be brought to light. The reduction of the neural spines is questionable.
Curiously,
Gregory Paul has noted that the cervicals of
Protoavis and
drepanosaurs are astonishingly similar, such they are hardly distinguishable from one another.
[8]:Fig. 10.7BaConsidering the modification of the drepanosaur neck for the purposes of snap-action predation, it becomes more likely that superficial similarities in the cervicals of both taxa are in fact only convergent with
Aves.
[8] Chatterjee does not identify the remaining vertebrae as particularly avian in their osteology.
[10]
OK, so we have poorly preserved fossils. Some have claimed they are more bird-like in some features from archy, but most people seem to think not. Even if they were more birdlike than archy, that would not disprove evolution. That would merely indicate there were ancestors that had more birdlike features before archy, and archy was simply a very successful side line that maintained some skeletal features less like birds.
not a progressive creation but just a creation without any evolution. i think its fit well with the scientific data.
Wait, what? How can creation account for the hundreds of transitional fossils that were found? How can it account for all the mammal-like reptile fossils, for instance, that are found in layers millions of years before the first mammals?