Learn to read:<quoted text>
You may now put that foot of yours further down your mouth. Your link says nothing about arch having hollow bones.
Instead it said.....
"Our research shows us that this is much more like a dinosaur than a modern bird," says Gregory Erickson of the Department of Biological Science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and a lead author on the new report, which was published online yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE. By looking at the growth patterns in bone, Erickson and his colleagues were able to discover that Archaeopteryx had a slow and stilted growing period like other dinosaurs, and unlike modern birds, which "just explode into adult size," he explains.
Archaeopteryx's bones, including annual growth lines, small blood vessels and parallel bone cells, shared by other similar-size dinosaurs, such as the Jeholornis prima."
SO, ACTUALLY YOUR ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME.
Now how do you suppose these bright ones OBSERVED this? They didn't. Instead they got out their algorithmic magic, filled it with unkown and speculative insertion values still based on a predetermined connection.
This is also what it says....
"Despite the general similarities to modern birds—feathers, a beak and a wishbone—that led to its avian categorization in the first place, the Archaeopteryx "would be very foreign to bird-watchers today," Erickson says.
The headline is BYE BYE BIRDIE, New Look at Archaeopteryx Shows It Was More Dinosaur Than Bird .... Did you happen to read that?
Now this above is rubbish because Trex had feathers and arch did not 'evolve' the feathers as an intermedate step.
As for the wishbone, all you evos have avoided commentary on the fact that the dino wishbone, furcula, looks nothing at all like a bird wishbone.
As for the beak, this is another fraudulent misrepresentation to fool the public into thinking these researchers know what they are saying. In actual fact Arch's beak was no more similar to the beak dinos have and a plethora of other creatures share.
"The terms beak and rostrum are also used to refer to a similar mouthpart in some Ornithischian dinosaurs, monotremes, cephalopods (see Cephalopod beak), cetaceans, billfishes, pufferfishes, turtles, Anuran tadpoles and sirens."
The reason why you evos cannot clearly dilineate a bird from a dinosaur is that you simply refuse to look at difference. You all are absolutely so indoctrinated into evolutionary theory that you are blind and look to all with evo goggles.
You one thing you 'know' from the fossil record and life today is that a plethora of creatues share many similar traits. One does not tell creatures apart by looking to the similarities, one looks to the differences which I also do. That is why I can be a heck of a lot clear in separating familial homological relationships and discontinuities than evos can.
Evos take these footprints and invent mythical theropods to explain them, backed by a plehtora of algorithmic magic that suggests conflicting results and claims that are hugely misrepresented.
I say again, on my point 3, I have fossilised evidence of modern bird footprints that display a reversed hallux and look exactly like modern bird footprints look like. That assertion is based on the science of observation. You have hubris and often non plausible hypothesis to explain them.
I manintain my 6 points in support of a creationist paradigm are certianly no worse, yet appear to be more rubust and credible than anything an evolutionist can provide in support of their view.
"or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."