The one I'm talking about was published in National Geographic about 10 years ago. It was a dinosaur skeleton with a bird's tail glued on. Nat Geo retracted everything later. edit: do a quick search for Archaeoraptor. You'll see the fervor and then retraction by Nat Geo.

I'll admit I'm not an expert on the subject, so please do keep me accountable. I'm relating information from sources who know more than I do, who I do trust. While I know about the archeopteryx, I don't know about the others. I know they couldn't fly. I believe they don't constitute a link between the two species.

If I got the details wrong, forgive me. The point is, evolution states that everything has evolved from something else. With the plethora of species today and all of the fossil record that has been uncovered, not a single transition of one species to another can be documented. That silence speaks pretty loudly.

Add to that the nature of just the human body. We have something like 3,000 enzymes, all essential to survival. Did we evolve a new enzyme and keep it around for a couple thousand years and then develop the need for it? Or did we develop the need for the enzyme and fortunately evolve the enzyme in the same body at the same time? The latter scenario doesn't work. For the former scenario, the human body would have to be full of useless enzymes right now. Med students correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told that we have no superfluity of useless enzymes.