Essay, how is that you have time to be a gadfly, but not to answer the specific questions in #803, restated in #811?

: By now everyone is waking up to read about the 4-legged, 4-winged gliding reptile fossil found in China.

Now that would be quite a beast. Eight limbs in all? And a reptile at that? No, actually it is four limbs, of course, and they say it's a dinosaur, which means the debate is ongoing as to "reptile" or not. Dinosaur is one of those broad descriptive categories, isn't it? In fact, the bird-like features of theropods have long been debated, in terms of meaning and relationship. Below are links to some articles, the most recent (today's) and a couple that are a little older, about the Chinese fossils and the interpretations and controversies. The popular media has a way of overstating the significance (sensationalizing) and understating the uncertainty and controversy. Perhaps the articles could and should be read with thought, critical thinking, rather than blind faith and presumption? There is nothing scary about these articles, and they offer nothing beyond speculation in support of "the evolution of species."

Fossil boosts trees-down start for flight The current news release article, January 23, 2003

Feathery fossils ruffle dinosaur debate May 23, 2001

Feathered Dinosaurs Found in China June 27, 1998

Early bird ate seeds July 25, 2002

: Interesting, but hardly unique. Type in 'flying + dinosaur' in a search engine and read about many, many more similar critters, discovered over many years.

Well, not exactly "many, many", but a few. The odd thing for ancestry advocates is that Archaeopteryx is supposed, according to uniformitarian methodology, to have live 150 million years ago. Jeholornis is supposed to have lived sometime between 140 and 125 million years ago. Both of these are generally recognized as true birds with feathers and flight. Seems like the little Chinese "dinosaur" rated at 125 million years ago by uniformitarian methods is a little late coming to the party, to tell us anything about transitional forms or bird ancestors. But then, the articles aren't really saying the "feathered dinosaurs" are transitional forms or ancestors of birds. The debate is ongoing in terms of dinosaur-bird links among the evolutionists. The current article was presented in terms of trying to understand flight and feathers (both of which Archaeopteryx supposedly had 25 million years earlier). That argument rages on.

It is an interesting curiousity that all of these recent finds are coming from the same bone bed in China, found and interpreted by the same researchers.

By the way, it is good to know that you, essay, do know how to use a search engine. Some of your previous questions and assertions have led me to wonder whether you know how to look things up for yourself on the internet. I'm glad to know you do. It must be a gadfly thing.

: Have any of these stopped the 'creationists' from claiming that no 'transistional' species have ever been found? Of cuss not.

I do discourage cussing and crudity, but no, of course not, because there are no "transistional species" in the fossil record. These Chinese beasties don't qualify, and the supposed chronology is all wrong. There is nothing that bridges the gaps in kinds (the Biblical word "kind" is considerably broader than the modern word "species") we observe today, and nothing that bridges the gaps in systems order (like proto-eyes or proto-feathers), except hypotheticals, not fossils.

Heretical of course, in the scheme of the modern evolutionary paradigm, but maybe the dino-raptors really were raptors. The entire order Ornithischia is defined by the "birdlike" pelvis. Maybe the theropods really were flightless birds. Unthinkable, I suppose, but then a lot of unthinkable things are swallowed whole, because they're in the science section of the newspaper.

Just for fun, here's a rather different sort of link, not scholarly, certainly not evolutionist, just some guy spouting off on the "feathered dinosaurs." Dinosaurs did NOT Evolve into Birds or Any thing else ! (Don't bother critiquing it here. E-mail the guy if you have problems with his view.)
Also just for fun, we have two images (I hope). One is a reproduction of a drawing in American Scientist, January-February 1979, of a hypothetical beastie that author-illustrator John Ostrom called pro-avis. I regret that I don't have the original, with the artist's name, just a 1982 reproduction. In the article Ostrom stated that "No fossil evidence exists of any pro-avis. It is a purely hypothetical pre-bird, but one that must have existed." Then we have the drawing by Portia Sloan, released with today's story. Talk about your fortuitous finds! That guy Ostrom was like a prophet! Except that the chronology is all wrong. Except that the pelvic structure as illustrated in the drawings is altogether wrong for a theropod, or any creature of the "raptor" description. Except that both are just interpretive drawings, one totally hyptothetical, the other totally subjective. You don't suppose Portia has ever looked at Ostrom's work do you? Surely there isn't someone with an agenda to push, is there?

Oh, wait, one more link we should look at, in Science News, about some funny Chinese fossils previously announced as bird-dinosaur links in October, 1999. Just for perspective, ups and downs and all that. All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs January 15, 2000. Contrary to a thought expressed in the article, there have been a number of fossils "with a sadder history than this one."

Essay, don't be a gadfly, and don't editorialize or pontificate. Answer the question in #803, directly and honestly.