"#1. ONCE the conference admits Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD - the case for "PROTO-Bird" fails as does the case for TRANSITION BETWEEN A and C."
YOU HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THIS ASSERTION DESPITE PAGES OF ASKING YOU TO DO SO!!!
I have presented much evidence that the conference participants actually were presenting evidence FOR archy as a transitional. The title of the conference proceedings is The Beginnings of the Birds for crying out loud. Do you have no shame? Do you not see that your assertion in this matter has been shredded? Why do you not even make an attemp to support your assertion? It is because you know it is false and cannot be supported. So instead you continue to make the same assertions, not just without support, but in the face of the contrary information presented to you.
"#2. The point is that a SISTER group evolving from a DIFFERENT line than your dinosaur "Story" merely SHOWS that they do NOT consider your "story" to be "compelling"."
Nope. The truth is that there is still debate on the details of this subject. There is no debate on whether birds evolved. Most experts believe that birds evolved from the theropods. There are compelling reasons for this. We have the in the fossil record of the theropods the evolution of many of the characteristics found in birds including hollow bones, a fused clavicle, and feathers. Nor there is a minority that says that these shared characteristics had actually evolved much earlier and these shared traits are because of a common ancestor which had already attained these characteristics. This goes against the majority opinion but is not a problem for evolution and is not without its supporting facts. The point to be made is that in either case, birds evolved and we have a record of birdlike traits in creatures that are without question reptiles.
"#3. Once we discover that "reptiles HAVE Scales" the problem is "obvious" for feathers NOT evolving from scales seeking for the link BETWEEN them fails since feathers DID NOT evolve FROM scales. (That "sister" thing again)."
Did you not read the part you bolded? The feathers could be more ancient that believed and scutes could have actually evolved from feathers instead of the other way around. There are archosaur fossils that give hints that they may have had downy feathers. You bolded this yourself so you know it. Again this is a minority opinion but does not serve as a problem or evolution. But it still does not fir the story you are trying to sell.
"#1. They believe birds NOT to have descended from Dinosaurs."
Yes, Feduccia is in the minority opinion that birds and theropods share traits because they share an ancestor with these traits rather than because the theropods directly lead to birds. You see this as vindicating your position how? You see this as a problem for evolution how?
"#2. They believe that feathers DID NOT evolve from scales."
OK. You want to go with the minority opinion that feathers are even older than we think and that scutes evolved from feathers instead of the other way around. You see this as vindicating your position how? You see this as a problem for evolution how?
"#3. They believe Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD rather than proto-Bird giving way to "birds" from reptiles."
Again, please support your assertion. The readers are well aware that you are making this claim in spite of the evidence and that you are avoiding presenting the evidence. Because it does not exist.
"#4. They believe that TRUE birds are in fact OLDER than Archaeopteryx!"
Did you know that my parents are still alive? I still have one set of grandparents alive! How can that be since I am here?
More on topic... How can we have wolves when they were breed and selected to give us dogs?
Just because part of a population evolves into something else does not mean that the rest of the population dies off or does not evolve into yet another creature. This is what we have with Archaeopteryx. It is a side branch in the tree of birds.
You quote Barbara J. Stahl, "How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition."
And you ignore that you have been presented with evidence of the evolution of feathers. Creatures at several different points along the way have been discovered. But, alas, most of them were found after this quote was made so you are throwing mud in a hole that has already been filled in.
You then quote Feduccia, "Most recent workers who have studied various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx have found the creature to be much more birdlike than previously imagined," and "the resemblance of Archaeopteryx to theropod dinosaurs has been grossly overestimated."
First, remember that he is one of this minority people who say that birds share a common ancestor with theropods so he can be expected to highlight the differences. This is similar to what you were doing earlier when quoting people who advocate PE over gradualism. You were making a problem where none exist. Remember, he also says "The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution."
Do you have any proof yet on your claims about the conference?
I did not think so. Bet, as predicted, you are still making the claim. No shame. Your actions are one of the best arguments against YE and examples of YE "junk" that could be given.
