re: #607 Basho

You can’t even understand simple freaking words… I said, very clearly mind you, that I have a layman’s understanding of this stuff.

You can’t even get the facts right on what little I do know, you idiot.

I caught the “layman” word, but that does not belie the way you purported to be more of an expert than me. You suggested that I had picked the wrong species to talk about, that I had stumbled into something you knew about.

Here is a clip from the entry for Bird in Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
en.wikipedia.org

The Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx is well-known as one of the first transitional fossils to be found and it provided support for the theory of evolution in the late 19th century. Archaeopteryx has clearly reptilian characters: teeth, clawed fingers, and a long, lizard-like tail, but it has finely preserved wings with flight feathers identical to those of modern birds. It is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, but is the oldest and most primitive member of Aves or Avialae, and it is probably closely related to the real ancestor. It has even been suggested that Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur that was no more closely related to birds than were other dinosaur groups,[15] and that Avimimus was more likely to be the ancestor of all birds than Archaeopteryx.[16]

See it right there? It was considered a transitional fossil back in the 19th century during Darwin’s time, but future digging of fossils has discredited this interpretation among evolutionists. Yet time and time again, ad nauseum, we see these so many zealot scientists misrepresenting Archaeopteryx and touting it as a transitional species so as to keep the “faith” in evolution among those less knowledgable of the actual empirical data.