The conclusion you skip over is quite telling:<quoted text>
It is no more transitional than a cat is between a mouse and a dog.
Arch is no more transitional than a bat is between a mouse and a bird, or a flying fish is between a fish and a bird.
Many non birds ha
"Creationists will doubtlessly pounce upon this story and quote-mine articles for supposedly damning phrases. But revisions and uncertainities like this are to be expected. As with all big evolutionary shifts, there wasn’t a simple linear route from dinosaur to bird. Instead, animals at the time developed a whole range of different body shapes that were eventually tested and winnowed by natural selection.“There were lots of experimental trials”, says Xu.
The fossil record is full of these failed experiments and evolutionary dead-ends, all preserved alongside the success stories that eventually gave rise to modern species. This makes it very difficult to construct a robust family tree. Witmer sums it up brilliantly in the conclusion of his editorial:
“Just as Xiaotingia moved Archaeopteryx out of the birds, the next find could move it back in — or to somewhere else within this fuzzy tangled knot that makes up the origins of birds and bird-like dinosaurs. That said, during this sesquicentennial anniversary of Archaeopteryx, which is being honoured with exhibits and commemorative coins, the bitter irony may be that it may not have been the bird we’ve always thought it was. But Archaeopteryx will remain an icon of evolution, perhaps even more so now, providing compelling evidence that, as we should expect, evolutionary origins are rather messy affairs.”"
The thing is, you don't seem to understand how science works (it's not dogmatic), nor how speciation works, no how species are interconnected through common descent.
So you make all kinds of strange claims.