"The `` fossils `` of Archy is even questionable in and of itself . The status of those `` fossils `` have also been questioned . ( And yet you use them as irrefutable evidence . )"
"Really ? Then present your evidence . Which of the Archaeopteryx fossils has been questioned ? What was the evidence upon which this was based ? What are the other possible explanations for these fossils ? Of course , you will present the source of your objections . Also the qualifications of those who presented the questions - were they mathematicians and astronomers or paleontologists and ornithologists ? And then please go on to discuss the fossils themselves . How many are there ? What are they ? Please discuss the presence or lack of the gastralia , furcula , carina , opposable hallux , fused trunk vertebrae , pneumatic bones , feathers , beak , teeth , tail ( of free vertebrae ) , fibula , clawed digits on forelimbs , preorbital fenestra , and so on . Please detail the `` status `` of these fossils , i.e. , how many opinions are there , who holds these positions , and on what evidence do they base the opinion ? If those who assert that the fossils of Archaeopteryx are questionable are correct , then what possible questioning of the `` status `` of the fossils can there be . Perhaps this will be a case where Calli has actually learned before speaking . If so , then perhaps we should start a separate thread to discuss Archaeopteryx . However , I suspect that Calli has already told us all she knows ."
"The status of those `` fossils `` have also been questioned . ( And yet you use them as irrefutable evidence . )"
"Which of the Archaeopteryx fossils has been questioned ? What was the evidence upon which this was based ?"