Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution

This is just not true. There is, though "inter-related" is not a good way to term it.Now, no scientist will tell you that there isn't much yet to be learned about the origins of flight, but you make the ultimate mistake of assuming a that gap in any type knowledge automatically invalidates that which IS known.There is little doubt that the evolution of flight is one of the sketchiest areas of the ToE, but that in no way detracts from a wealth of evidence that DOES well support evolution. The ToE is far from complete, but for the last 150 years EVERY new observation in its field has supported its core hypothesis.Sooo.....if you disagree with the ToE, stop waving your arms around and produce an alternative hypothesis that can be falsified!

Thanks Jar!

No, you have here an avowed evolutionist who tacitly implies that he does not agree with the tenets of creationism, arguing that there is a problem with our assumptuions about the evolution of birds. Nothing he says is a threat to the ToE - he simply sees a lack of evidence in this area. Reproof? No. This isn't how science operates. Science doesn't seek "proof", it seeks the accumulation of evidence to support its hypotheses.Revision? Absolutely! Science is always open to revisions (or revolutions). The ToE has, in effect, been revised repeatedly for 150 years as we have observed and accumulated evidence. Nothing has contradicted Darwin's core assertions, but scientists have refined and revised and rethought many of the details...