I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
>>I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.<<
Well, this is an interesting starting point:
http://www.rae.org/flight.html
I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
I, and thousands of others, cite Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil; it has a mix of reptilian and avian features. Explain to me why I'm wrong.
Although I believe it is possible that you, yourself, do not believe this is a transitional form and are merely testing him. 8^>
Sorry, It looks like I have "cut and paste" issues today.
This from the article: Creationists have rightly responded by pointing out that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of fully-formed reptilian features and fully-formed avian features, not a half- reptile/half-bird. Whether such odd mosaics are genuine transitional forms is doubtful (Gould and Eldredge 1977; see note after citation).
BTW, have I mentioned that I love Google...
Explain to me why you are right. All you've done is beg reason. You haven't presented a factual transition from one state to another. You have not presented a lizard changing to a bird. It's a bird. Whatever odd characteristics it might seem to have, it is a bird. I'm sorry, but that is not a transition. You point to it hoping people will buy it as a transition; but, then what do you do with the platypus? Right. It defies categorization because you categorized by what seamed reasonable to you. When you find something that defies your categorization, is it your method, or the thing your method is applied to that is at fault.
You can't explain how entire complex systems just appear out of nowhere. Lungs require integration into the nervous system and the circulatory system and must be integrated to fit in a cavity that makes room for it, must also have support mechanisms (new musculature) to provide for their function (ie the diaphram), must have a similar coding in the brain that regulates the function, etc. This is a massive leap which you can't show happening. Even one part of the mix, and I've been general in my listing, even one part would take a miracle, but the whole ball of wax happening would be so far beyond miraculous as the odds stack up that probability must fall to arguments of likelihood. Occam.. remember. And a transition in this point that failed to incorporate even one of the required changes isn't a partially working organism - it's dead.
Anything short of a 100% functional change that incorporates everything needed to make the thing functional results in death - either due to the obvious in this case - the animal dies because it can't breath - or do to selection - the animal can't survive it's environs and is actually picked out of the pack and becomes a pariah because it's different.
Transitional fossils should show us a critter with different stages of a developing wing - which again, cuts across multiple biological systems and functions. 1/5 of a wing don't make a bird. But you have nothing showing wings developing on mice to make a bat, or the like. This is nothing you guys aren't aware of. But you have to down play what's missing and play slight of hand otherwise.
Your problem. Not mine.