But I don't see where finding, or maybe finding, or claiming to have found, a new, bigger and better, bird like fossil makes a case for or against darwinism(?)
Evolution itself, changes in, and adaption of, structure over time, is pretty well assumed. Other implications of that theory are what causes debate.
What is not universally granted, what is possibly the minority view, is that life results from cataclismic soup and that humankind itself is part of Gigantoraptor Erlianensis' family tree.
I don't see where disagreement over the validity or lack thereof of Peking Man bears on that debate. There is a huge pile of evidence telling us that humans differ from each other across time and geography.
What's wrong with simply marveling at the possibility of another critter in the record?
It ain't like anyone is going to posit a featherless, huge, beaked, upright, lizard (or not) as somekind of missing link to Paris Hilton.
Rosy O'Donnell - maybe.
A very good point. I guess when I read that this bird had been found in China it reminded me of the Pekin Man which as you know was an alleged "missing-link" in man's evolution. I thought it would be fun to see what people thought might have "evolved" from this newest "find."
Don't get me wrong folks. I love anthropology. In fact a good friend of my had the Krzyzanowskisaurus named after him. It too was a bird like creature (Much smaller mind you.) I just don't buy into the whole junk science religion or it's evolutionary hooey.