Saying that "it is a bird, not dinosour" is just putting a human classification on it - it could just as easily be classified as a reptilian bird, or an avian reptile. Paleontologists classify it as a bird because the taxonomical classification system forces it to be put in one category or the other; however, these same paleontologists do not deny that it has clear reptilian characteristics as well as avian characteristics, and agree that is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. If you want to argue that Archaeopteryx is really just a bird, and not a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, how do you explain all of the obviously reptilian characteristics which it exibits?

"Apart from the feathers, however, Archaeopteryx exhibits a number of characteristics which are not birdlike at all, but are shared by the therapod dinosaurs--and some of these are found in no other group of animals. Among the dinosaurian characteristics exhibited by Archaeopteryx are: simple concave articulation points on the cervical vertebrae, rather than the elongated saddle-shaped articulation found in birds; vertebrae in the trunk region which are free and mobile, rather than fused together as in birds; the presence of gastralia, or abdominal ribs, which are found in reptiles and therapods but not in birds; a rib cage which lacks uncinate processes and does not articulate with the sternum, rather than the strutlike uncinates and sternum articulations found in all birds; a sacrum consisting of only 6 vertebrae, rather than the 11-23 found in birds; mobile joints in the bones of the elbow, wrist and fingers, rather than the fused joints found in birds; a shoulder socket that faces downward like a therapod's, rather than outward like a bird's; solid bones which lack pneumatic sacs, rather than the hollow air-permeated bones found in birds; and a long bony tail with free vertebrae, rather than the short fused pygostile found in birds;

The Archaeopteryx skull is also typically reptilian in structure, exhibiting: a number of openings or "fenestrae" in the skull, arranged as in therapod dinosaurs and not birds; a heavy but short quadratic bone which is inclined forward as in reptiles; a bend in the jawbones behind the tooth row; a long retro-articular process, which is found in reptiles but not in birds; a thin straight jugal bone as in reptiles; a preorbital bar separating the anteorbital fenestra and the eye socket (a reptilian characteristic); an occipital condyle and foramen magnum that are located above the dorsal end of the quadrate bone as in therapods, rather than below the quadrate as in all other birds; and a brain structure which exhibits elongated and slender cerebral hemispheres which do not overlap the midbrain (in birds, the cerebral hemispheres are heavy and extend over top of the midbrain)." - www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm

- The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form - part bird, part dinosaur... you simply cannot logically argue otherwise.

>First of all since creatures within a family, order, or
>class are so highly variable, it would be predicatable on
>the basis of the creation model that animals in different
>orders and classes would have some charecteristics in
>common. ( although those horses seemed to be in the same
>species to me, but I did not look very closely.) I'd be more
>convinced if someone would show me a half reptile/half
>horse. All those looked like to me was fossils of different
>horses found in different parts of the world who had gone
>through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate,
>not some jump between species. They looked to all belong to
>the same family. Hence micro not macro evolution.

First of all, how are you going to presume to come to such a conclusion when you admit that you did not look very closely at the fossils? They are indeed very different - I already which explains this in detail. And btw, as I already explained, they do all belong to the same family, equid, but they are all different species - just like how dogs and foxes are different species, but are in the same family, Canidae.

Your argument holds no water - you are making a hand-waving argument that has no scientific validity. If I showed you the skeletal fossils of a dog and a fox, you would make the same argument - that it just looks like fossils of different dogs found in different parts of the world who had gone through some sort of adaptation as a result of the climate, not some jump between species - and you would be wrong for the same reason.

As for saying that you would only be convinced by something like a half reptile/half horse... well, 2 things: 1st, evolution is what it is - it does not follow the path or pattern that *you* want to see to be convinced, especially since you are basing your objections on personal opinion, not scientific principles. 2nd, if you're not convinced by a half dinosaur/half bird, then I doubt you'd be convinced by a half reptile/half horse even if it did exist anyway - you'd just deny that it was such and say it is a reptile, not a horse, or some other such nonsense.

>Many claim that Archaeopteryx has teeth, a long tail, claws
>and wings, which are all reptilain charecteristics.
>However, Archaeopteryx did not have reptile teeth, but teeth
>that were uniquely bird like, having unserrated teeth with
>the constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropd
>dinosaures (its alleged ansector) had serrated teeth with
>straight roots. Futhermore it is not suprising that some
>birds had teeth, since this is true of all other
>vertabrates.

You are probably using outdated sources, because in the last decade they have found a theropod dinosaur with unserrated teeth etc. - :

"Byronosaurus is a troodontid theropod known from a fragmentary skull and postcranial bones... The unserrated teeth closely resemble those of Archaeopteryx in form, with a constriction between the root and the base of the crown." - www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinob.htm (scroll to bottom of page)

(also of interest to note: "Similar to birds, Byronosaurus has a chamber in the snout where air enters from the nostrils before passing through to the mouth, with a connection between the nasal passage and the antorbital fenestra through the interfenestral bar")

>The long tail is supposed to be a reptillain
>feature, but not all reptiles have long tails.

And no birds have long bony tails like Archaeopteryx. In birds, vertebrae at the tail end of the backbone are fused into a structure called a pygostyle; Archaeopteryx's tail, like other reptiles, has free unfused vertebrae up to the tip, with no pygostyle. Hence, the structure of the Archaeopteryx tail is clearly reptilian, not avian.

>Also Archaeoptrys fossil gave no evidence of a bony sternum,
>which lead many palentologist to believe that he could not
>fly, however, a seventh species was reported that in cluded
>a bony sterunum. Thus proving that the bird was suitable
>for flying as any modern bird.

That is still up for debate, but Archaeopteryx was most likely incapable of fully powered flight, for numerous reasons , including wing flexibility, muscle mass, etc. Furthermore, the 7th specimen w/ bony sternum has been classified as a separate species - Archaeopteryx bavarica.

>Finally one must believe that scales evolved into feathers
>for flight, this idea no matter how many millions of years
>one gives it is simply far fetched.

Again, this is nothing more than an empty hand-waving argument. The evidence says otherwise: small theropod dinosaurs have been found which are covered with over its entire body, as well as theropods which had .

- on the similarity of the filamentous structures to feathers:

"There are three basic types of filamentous structure: single fibres, long 'sprays' of fibres that resemble the plumulaceous feathers of Protarchaeopteryx, and fibres oriented around a central axis in a herring-bone pattern that resembles the remiges of Caudipteryx. ...On the arms, distally a tight herring-bone pattern appears to be organized around a central rachis. This is the same as the pattern seen in Caudipteryx zoui. ...The herring-bone appearance of the preserved impressions indicates that some organizing pattern, such as the barbules of modern birds, must have been present.

Because feathers are the only integumental covering in vertebrates that have a tufted or branched structure the occurrence of similar structures in NGMC 91, coupled with its phylogenetic position near the base of birds, is strong evidence that these structures are feather homologues."

- on the dinosaurs with true modern-style feathers:

"A clump of at least six plumulaceous feathers is preserved anterior to the chest, with some showing well-developed vanes. Evenly distributed plumulaceous feathers up to 27 mm long are associated with ten proximal caudal vertebrae. Twenty-millimetre plumulaceous feathers are preserved along the lateral side of the right femur and the proximal end of the left femur.

Parts of more than twelve rectrices are preserved attached to the distal caudals. One of the symmetrical tail feathers extends 132 mm from the closest tail vertebra, and has a long tapering rachis with a basal diameter of 1.5 mm. The well-formed pennaceous vanes of Protarchaeopteryx show that barbules were present. The vane is 5.3 mm wide on either side of the rachis. At midshaft, five barbs come off the rachis every 5 mm (compared with six in Archaeopteryx), and individual barbs are 15 mm long. As in modern rectrices, the barbs at the base of the feather are plumulaceous."

- on the evidence that the filamentous feather-like structures evolved into true feathers:

"Recent models of feather evolution based on development predict that feathers went through evolutionary stages of unbranched ules, followed by the development of a rachis and finally barbs. The shape of the filaments on NGMC 91 meet these predictions, as several of these patterns are present on the specimen.".

- on the fact that these feathered theropods are not birds, but in fact true dinosaurs:

"Phylogenetic analysis shows that both Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx lie outside Avialae and are non-avian coelurosaurs. This indicates that feathers are irrelevant in the diagnosis of birds. It can no longer be certain that isolated down and semi-plume feathers discovered in Mesozoic rocks belonged to birds rather than to non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, the presence of feathers on flightless theropods suggests that the hypothesis that feathers and flight evolved together is incorrect. Finally, the presence of remiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feathers on non-avian theropods provides unambiguous evidence supporting the theory that birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs."

- Thus, there is indeed strong evidence that feathers evolved from reptilian scales (as well as that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs). This should not be so surprising, as scales and feathers are both composed of the same substance, keratin. Furthermore, the evidence strongly suggests that feathers originally evolved to provide insulation, and were only later adapted for flight.

More on the feathered dinosaurs:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/museum/tempexhib/dinobirds/introduction/index.htm

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/cfd/CFDintro.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE WRONG GUY!!!" - Neal Page, 'Planes, Trains, and Automobiles'