DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you essentially saying that, when put to the question of "What is Archaeopteryx MORE like, a bird or a reptile?" he answers bird? That is no biggie at all then. He's got to answer something! There isn't anything that is "halfway in between" or "exactly equally a bird and a reptile." I hope thats not what the anti-macroevolutionists are expecting. I know almost nothing about birds, so I will take his expert opinion that it is more birdlike than reptilelike. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional, far from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I completely agree. I've never seen that exact question posed to him, but I assume he would say "bird". I'm merely pointing out that Dr. Feduccia's conclusions about archaeopteryx being a bird, even if we grant it's NOT a transitional form, says nothing about the (in)validity of evolution.

But yes, I do think anti-macroevolutionists are expecting exactly that. Even more, they are expecting that AND using their own definition of "50/50 birdtile" thus making the claim always refutable.

Link to Dr. Feduccia's Science abstract about archaeopteryx