Unbelievable Arphy.
The inacccuracies in that article have been hashed out, on these very pages, about twenty times. I'm amazed that you are still defending it.
Let's take a quick look at some distortions;
CMI writes:
Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory.
Horse shit.
As has already been demonstrated, Feduccia does not argue against "dino-to-bird". His opinion is that
birds are descended from dinosaurs. He just thinks that they are descended from a different kind of dinosaur to most other experts. Have you forgotten everything that has been said here?
Differences in expert opinion over which exact group of dinosaurs no more cast doubt upon "dino-to-bird" than differences in opinion over the details of Christ's teachings (faith versus works for example) prove that Jesus did not exist. Yet the CMI article uses this blatant distortion again and again. Let's take another appalling distortion;
CMI writes:
The evidence indicates that the critics are both rightbirds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles.
What utter mendacity! No-one, not Feduccia, not evolutionists,
NO-ONE, is claiming that birds descended from "mini-crocodiles" or anything even remotely as stupid. How can anyone write such drivel? I can think of only two explanations; a) the author was a drooling imbecile or b) the author is lying. Either way, it is good reason to distrust the source.
Why you continue to defend an article that contains such nonsense is beyond me.
Mutate and Survive
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod