>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?

Response: Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I am moving right now and my internete will be down for awhile. However, back to the subject there are certain differances that Archeopteryx has that dinasoures do not. And it does have qualities that are similar to both, but the problem is that their are certain charecteristics of it,that cannot be reptillian at all. Futhermore, simply illustrating similarities is not enough to overide it's differences.
>
>"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;

Response: First of all many people do not regard it as a transitonal form, because it has no transitional structure. Even though it does share chareteristics of both bird and dinasour, scales and feathers are entirely different. Here is a link comparing scales verses feathers in detail.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1201.asp

One cannot simply say that scales of a reptile can transform into wings due to some sort of chemical chance.

>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

Response: Again, the differences are too great, check out this qoute.

For example, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote an encyclopedic book on living and fossil birds.5 He pointed out much evidence against the dinosaur-to-bird theory, including the huge differences in lung and embryonic thumb structure. Also, dinosaurs have exactly the wrong anatomy for developing flight, with their large tails and hindlimbs and short forelimbs. And the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ are ‘dated’ by evolutionists at millions of years later than undoubted birds.

This is inexcapable evidence that dinasours cannot evolve into birds.
>
>- The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that
>Archaeopteryx is a transitional form - part bird, part
>dinosaur... you simply cannot logically argue otherwise.

Response: Yes, I can. Even National Geographic recanted its view on Archeopteryx. Note the following.

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor , I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1

>>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

Response: Because they all looked like horses, and even you called them horses, and the article called them horses. And I never said they were the same.

>this link] 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.

Response: And that is absolutely fine, God told Noah to all the animals of their KIND on the Ark. What we want is some sort of transitional form, between two entirely different species (outside of family).
>
>Your argument holds no water - you are making a hand-waving
>argument that has no scientific validity.

Response: LOL, define science. Be careful how you do it, because science has a hard time defining itself. This should be good, most of what is classified as science self refutes itself.

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.

Response: And what reason would that be? Futhermore, you should be able to provide a half rat,half dog or something. Since, that would be macro evolution.
>
>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.

Response; LOL, define science. And be careful not to wipe out most of the other fields that are called science but by definition are not.


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

Response: Now, I did not know that one. Sure I'll check that out. by the way I never said there were no dinasoures with no feathers. I am saying that scales do not evolve into feathers.

Another problem dealing with birds verses reptiles is the lung structure of birds.