thankyou, stu, for a more reasoned response than the other posters since my question. I note that you admit that the story is still baffling, so I assume that also means that it is far from cut and dried. interesting that teeth may appear in new born chicks, especially as I recently read that horner and larrson have for a few years been trying to engineer a chickosaurus.
best I can make out, you are saying that because only very tiny changes over millennia occurred, a definite transitional alludes us, and the story is put together by placing whatever beasts and birds seem closest together to form some kind of development. sorry if that seems too simplistic, but that's how it appears, and gould himself had admitted the missing branches of the evolutionary tree. I suppose there may be more info and data since he conceded that.
I should note that picking a bird and yelling dinosaur is not science either.....as I believe was done with archaeopterex for some time.

musket....Creation.com often publishes responses and answers to critics....as long as they are not full of foul language.
I recommend you do tackle them with your objections.

shimrod...and only because YOU want there to be a common ancestor!.