Science Disproves Evolution

Obviously his research is beyond reproach.

You seem to think you have something you don't.

No transitional lifeforms.
None.
- (But I like your avatar.)

Listen, a guy who thinks genes need rest is; .......well, somewhat suspect.
But he says there was an evolving.

Back to Ernst Haeckel.

Some of his thoughts and research on some subjects were later found to be incorrect in some details. This happens with pretty much every researcher ever. However nothing you posted has anything to do with his research on the nylonase enzyme in Flavobacterium.

When did he say this?

Well, an honest person can really only say "I don't know of any evidence for x", it's potentially pretending to be omniscient to say "There is no evidence for x". But I guess you meant to silently imply, 'that I know of'.
You may not know of one iota of evidence for transitional forms, but I know lots
If you'd specify what you'd attributes you'd look for in identifying one, your definition of a transitional form, I'm sure I could point some out for you.
And sparrows aren't all the same species, there IS a transition of species, certainly according to the definition of species I said I was using.

One important thing to note is that things always stay part of the same family, they don't outgrow their ancestry and become not a part of their lineage just from large adaptations.
Things don't change from an x into a non-x.
Things change from an non-x into an x.

Sparrows descendants wont evolve into something that isn't a member of the sparrow family, but they will evolve into new families that current sparrows aren't a member of. Sparrow descendants will always be a part of the sparrow family, like we are still part of the eukaryote family from when our ancestors were microbes, like birds are still part of the dinosaur family.
Our descendants will always be a part of the mammal family, even if we lose all our stereotypical mammal features.

Really? Sparrows wont evolve into other Genes (Families)?
Gee whiz, I wonder how that single ameba evolved into a sentient being?
- Must have been different rules back then.
- Yup, must have been a whole different ballgame in the primordial soup.
Families of various types of creatures were a dime a dozen way back when.
- Flies spontaneously generated out of rancid meat.

When basal bird non-sparrows evolved into sparrows, they didn't stop being birds, vertebrates, eukaryotes, or lose any family names. It just adds a family name, sparrows (which of course isn't the scientific family name but we aren't getting super detailed)

What do you consider archaeopteryx or tiktaalik to be, if not transitional?

If you don't think there are any transitional fossils have fun explaining all
this.

[h=2]Claim CC200:[/h]There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.[h=3]Source:[/h]Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
[h=2]Response:[/h]

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
   
   The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
   10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
   11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
   
   
   1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
   2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
   3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
   4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
   5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
   6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
   7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
   8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
   9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
   
   
   1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
   2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
   3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

[h=2]Links:[/h]Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. Resource of the American Scientific Affiliation: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record by Keith B. Miller

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"[h=2]References:[/h]

1. Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
2. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
3. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
4. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
5. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
6. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
7. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
8. Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
9. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
10. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
11. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
12. Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
13. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
14. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
15. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina
16. Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
17. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
18. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
19. Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
20. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
21. Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
22. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
23. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
24. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
25. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. Coming soon page | register your domain at register.gkg.net

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, EVOLUTION AND THE FOSSIL RECORD ,http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Not enough fossils you say?

CC200.1: Transitional fossil abundance

Gaps?

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Sequences of transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry?

CC202: Transitional fossils and direct ancestry

Sorry but that's not what I said, I was talking about family names from the ancestry of an animal not being lost, not... genes cannot be gained. Dunno where you got that from

In fact I even said the rules were the same back in single celled organism days, and we are still a part of that family. The eukaryote family.
Just like if our descendants change into whale-like monstrosities they will still be a part of the human family, still be a part of the mammal family, and still be a part of the eukaryote family.
Even if they evolve to lose their spines they will still be a part of the 'Vertebrate' family in that sense, although not in the anatomical description sense.
So looking for a mammal to change into a non-mammal is the wrong thing to do, no matter how much something's descendants change, it's still a part of that family.

Here's another recent discovery of a "missing link".

419-Million Year Old 'Missing Link' Fish Fossil Discovered | Geekologie

Thanks, and I will.
'Bout time someone brought it up.
It was a bird. No reptiles have the bone pattern of it's wings.
Not any reptiles have the inter bone structure of it's wings.
You can say it was a prehistoric bird, but you cannot claim it was a reptile.

Gets back to the dating method of 'prehistoric' things.
Potassium-Argon, which is souly dependent on the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

You make my point.
Genes cannot be gained.
So how were they?

Why does having features that no other reptiles have make it a bird?
Are you aware it has features that no other birds have, like a toothed jaw?

Genes sure can be gained! Some accidental mutations duplicate sections and lengthen the genome, some viruses insert their DNA into the genome and become endogenous, then later adaptations can make these inserted sections of code useful to the host.

Um....simple Google search does wonders nowadays.

All About Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx's reptile features

5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

6) Trunk region vertebra are free.In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

7) Bones are pneumatic.I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:
"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)

8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-sectionA Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs:"Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in _Archaeopteryx_ - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds." (Ostrom 1976, p. 137).
Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).

11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:
"The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (de Beer 1954, p. 17).

12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.
The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.
What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:
"The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960, p. 258).
In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the "A"-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: <) (e.g. Romanoff 1960). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from "<" to "=". This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs. (see also A tale of two pelvises below)

16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) . However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.
It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:
"The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds." (Alexander 1990, p. 435).
Some similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs was once used to suggest that the Ratites were 'primitive' and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.
"He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur." (Tucker 1938a, p. 334).
"Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance." (de Beer 1956, p. 65).

18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:
"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."

21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.
Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

23) Gastralia present.Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds, e.g.:
"In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen." (de Beer 1954, p. 18)
"The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved." (de Beer 1954, p. 19)
"The "new" specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia." (Ostrom 1970, p. 538)
"Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . " (Ostrom 1972, p. 291).
"The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, .." (Ostrom 1972, p. 291)
"Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of _Archaeopteryx_" (Ostrom 1976, p. 139-140).
Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhofer 1974, fig. 7C)

Ichobod Crane, I have no idea what you are trying to claim.
Phillipy, there is never any new information. Mutancy is a rearanging of a small bit of the genetic code.

I guess you just didn't read what I just described and quoted, then?

You evolving evolutionists.
When is genetic code added?
When was the bone formed.
How about the eye?
Out of what soup did the brain spark?
To consider such things as being developed from chemical reactions is ridiculous.
- So you have to add billions of years. In that you think you can develop an eye.
- - Yet consult a statistician to see the least probability.
- - - Do you know what it is?
- - - - Do research. (B.T.W.- while your at it find out how many atoms are in the known universe)