Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Quote:"First, How many birds do you know that have a reptilelike long bony tail such as Archaeopteryx?"There are many unique species which are now extinct (the Dodo bird for one. How many reptiles do you know that have feathers or are warm blooded, or have a sternum.Quote: "Second, Are you just pasting somebody else's material? You sound like Harun Yahya."No. I don't know who Harun Yahya is. If it sounds like him perhaps you heard him refer to the same quotes I did and I do paraphrase at time info. from my research which comes from many different sources maybe one of his. If so, I apologize for having a like mind; I don't apologize for being correct.

ex libres,What would you expect from a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds? You would expect features that correspond to both, correct? This is what we find with Archaeopteryx.From Talkorigins.comIt is not 100% dinosaur and not 100% bird, just as we would expect with a transitional fossil. What are the dinosaurian characteristics that are not shared by any extant bird species, you ask (from talkorigins.org):1. Lack of a bill.2. Trunk region vertebrae are not fused.3. Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.4. Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.5. Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.6. Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).7. Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.8. Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum9. The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae!10. Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.11. Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).12. Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.13. Claws on 3 unfused digits.14. The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.15. Metatarsals (foot bones) free.16. Gastralia present. Gastralia are "ventral ribs."So, as you can see, 16 distinct reptillian characteristics are present in archaeopteryx that are not present in any present day bird. Now, why is this not a transitional fossil?[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-02-2004]

That would be saltation, not evolution. So no. Large scale morphological change in multi-cellular organisms is rarely if ever observed. The primary reason being that such massive change is almost invariably fatal. Most such "monsters" won't survive past the embryo stage.Punctuated equilibrium - at least the modern toned-down version is now pretty well accepted for certain lineages at certain times. It is, after all, merely an observation of a pattern found in certain lineages over time - most notably those marine organisms that Gould and Eldredge studied most. It has to do with mode and tempo, not mechanism. You're repeating a creationist strawman here. You might consider actually looking up some non-creationist references on PE. It could be illuminating for you to see what the scientists studying the issue have to say about it. By all means read both the pro- and con- arguments. It's a nice nutshell of the scientific process in action. Probably. Most major adaptive changes take time. Interestingly, such transitions (like glider to flyer) could take as little as a few hundred or thousand generations. Wouldn't even necessarily be a blip on the geological record when you're talking about grain on the order of a million+ years, let alone about a time distance from present on the order 100 my. What never ceases to amaze me is not that they haven't found all the "'tweens", but that they've found anything at all. Not only that, but found multiple specimens of Archy - it must have been a REALLY common sight back in its day.1. Why? Since several older fossils of ground-dwelling dinos were feathered, that's not an issue. As to utility, given the number of gliders alive today with unique adaptations - ranging from the flattened chest of the flying snake (Chrysopelea spp) to skin flaps of the world champion sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps) - it isn't a far stretch to see a smallish tree-dweller go from gliding to powered flight. And since the gliding ability of the numerous animals running around today don't seem to be major problems for their other, primary means of locomotion, the idea that "wings" had to be fully formed to be useful is shown to be erroneous. (If you can't tell, I prefer the "top down" vs "bottom up" pathway for the evolution of flight. I could be wrong.)2. No. Evolution couldn't care less what the future might bring. At the shortest timescales, evolution helps populations adapt over multiple generations to the conditions found in the population's current habitat. Since the environment is constantly changing, today's adaptation might very well be tomorrow's liability. If the change is drastic enough and in a short enough time frame, the odds are you're dead. Period. If not, or if your species has enough plasticity, then maybe - just maybe - you'll squeek through, until the next challenge comes along.3. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, the record is simply not complete enough - nor is it expected to be so - to get a geneological series of begats. In a nutshell, the reason is this: most critters don't fossilize when they die. Fossilization requires a whole host of specific conditions (i.e., rapid burial so it doesn't decompose or be eaten by scavengers, right conditions of acidity, moisture, temperature, soil composition), etc. Add to that geologic processes - everything from erosion to plate tectonics and vulcanism - which have a tendency to destroy most of what DOES get fossilized. Finally, consider the sheer magnitude of the pure luck involved that some buried fossil will erode to just the point where it's on the surface but NOT destroyed by erosion just at the right moment when some paleontologist happens to glance down and see it. In the particular case of Archy, we're talking small forest dweller, which one of the worst possible combinations for fossilization in the first place. Again, it is simply amazing to me that we have such a clear picture - or even any picture. I admit it's a bit disappointing that a lineal ancestor of Archy hasn't been discovered. However, under the circumstances, it isn't really that surprising. My guess is they'll keep looking. What kind of rediculous argument is this? This sounds like something Ken Ham or Kent Hovind came up with. Since DNA - the specific sequences of nucleic acids in the chromosomes of living organisms - are what is used to determine relatedness, please explain how comparing the volume of water in non-living and living matter is even remotely germane? The odds of two different living things sharing even 80% homology at the DNA level WITHOUT being related - however distantly - is simply astronomical. We're talking literally thousands of points of congruence. If they were totally different - if there was no congruence between different forms of life at the genetic level, then you might have a case for either ID or even special creation. Now you're back at the "root" of the "tree of life". Here's a very readable article on what scientists think is the answer to your question (note, this is not a peer-reviewed article, but rather a "pop sci" explanation. As such, it's neither overwhelmingly detailed nor necessarily authoritative. However, it IS a good overview). My Name is LUCA -- The Last Universal Common Ancestor. Enjoy. "Virtually identical" means what, exactly? The modern coelocanths are utterly different - not even in the same genus - as their Cretaceous ancestors. Same for the modern nautiloids - the last impoverished remnant of a once-dominant order. Bacteria? What? Which one? Bacteria certainly have been around for 3.5 gy, but you'll have to really stretch it to point to a single bacterial lineage that stretches anywhere near that long. Amphibians? Which ones do you think are "living fossils"? Insects found in amber? They're still insects - along with 750,000 other species. However, they AREN'T the same as those found today. Try again.

From the same web site:"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because (no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds. Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things.) So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs."See parenthesis.

ex libres, I'd like to clear up one major misconception. PE is NOT saltational. PE isn't overwhelmingly accepted because evolutionary rate change in lineages hasn't been explicitly associated with cladogenesis as per Eldredge & Gould's theory. However, anagenetic rate changes are well documented. So essentially a "weak" form of PE is universally accepted by scientists. Pure phyletic gradualism has been out of the window for some time, & saltationalism never really was accepted at all.Current accepted theory states that the most recent common ancestor ancestor to birds & reptiles are therapods. Essentially speciation would have separated the therapod lineage from the lineage that was to become birds. Feathers may well have already have existed given non-avian dinosaurs being in posession of them. For whatever reason the forelimbs of the proto-birds were exaptations allowing for some sort of gliding from trees, accelerated propulsion on the ground, or increased manoeuvrability on the ground. Increasing these traits in no way means the organisms involved had to run about with "half a wing", or a useless limb that could by definition not have been adaptively selected for flight. The limbs were plausibly & reasonably vital to the animals at all stages through the history of the evolution of flight. Clearly water content is not a synapomorphy. Classic creationist arguments from ignorance. There ARE transitional plants, & there ARE transitional insects. But here is not the place to discuss them, & let's face it, you'll only want the transitionals either side of the fossils, anyway (like you are doing with Archy). There isn't a single species that has survived since the K-T boundary, not one. That the body plans of their constituent clades should survive should be no great surprise, but then we are talkning about much larger groups of species, genera, families, etc. Your argument is the same as expressing surprise that tetrapods as a whole have survived since the Devonian, or that unicellularity still exists, or that there are still such things as arthropods, or that the continued existence bryozoans somehow presents a problem for evolution. And so it goes on.....A different question is to ask why species appear to exhibit stasis for periods of time, & then fairly rapid change occurs giving rise to other similar but morphologically different species. The potential answers are many. That environments are stable for periods of time & then exhibit rapid succession themselves. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but there is a study that supports this. There is a fairly rapid faunal turnover followed by ecological stasis, linked to climatic variation. The organisms simply adapt to their environments within the limits of their historical constraints, or become extinct. The survivors radiate & fill the exposed niches. That species habitat track is another, or live in environments that are shielded from major & rapid change, like the deep sea environment of Latimeria chalumnae. Interestingly, many Cenozoic coelacanths are freshwater fish, it shouldn't be a surprise then that the surving members fall into this change resistent environment. In essence these organisms are optimised & any variation is penalised, this is called stabilising selection.Rapid change tends only to be recorded in clades in which there is a good fossil record, siliceous, & calcium carbonate shelled critters spring to mind. The radiolarians, coccolithophores, foraminifera, molluscs & brachiopods, for example. The chances of seeing accelerated gradualism in rarely fossilised clades approaches zero.In any case all of this is simply a diversion. The FACT remains that Archaeopteryx lithographica possessed traits that are only found in reptiles, & in modern birds. It is by definition a transitional. Please directly address this FACT in your next post rather than a succession of diversions that skirt around the edge of it.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Concerning Archy, here is some info. for you to consider. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_08.html
For examples of unchanged species see:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_05.htmlSorry about refering but you won't take my word for it then take it from the one's who study this delimma.Oops, I realized I may still be skirting. I do not believe it to be a transitional form because you, nor anyone else has shown it to be in a line of transition. It has both bird and reptile features which can tell us one of three things. One, it is a bird with reptile features. Two, it is a reptile with bird features. or Three, it is a unique species which is now extinct having no transitional link to either dinos or birds. I opt for three. We have an example like this today. The platapus One, is it a duck with beaver or muskrat features? Two, is it a beaver or muskrat with duck features? or Three, a unique species with features of both? Now, I don't think you would ever try to claim if after finding a fossil in a million years of one of these creatures that they evolved from a duck or a beaver just because they have some common characteristics. By the way, do you think the evolutionists in that future time would be able to reconcile how a mammle could lay eggs or would they even be able to know this fact based on the fossil this animal might leave?[This message has been edited by ex libres, 03-02-2004]

Well, I don't debate websites. Perhaps you can pick out something you consider exceptionally compelling, synopsize it here, then be prepared to defend it. If this is your only answer to my post, then may I consider the remainder of my points - since uncontested - to have been accepted by you?

quote:

---

Oops, I realized I may still be skirting. I do not believe it to be a transitional form because you, nor anyone else has shown it to be in a line of transition. It has both bird and reptile features which can tell us one of three things. One, it is a bird with reptile features. Two, it is a reptile with bird features. or Three, it is a unique species which is now extinct having no transitional link to either dinos or birds. I opt for three.

---

You forgot number four. That Archy shares a common reptillian ancestor with all other birds. If you want to call it a unique species, you will probably do so with every transitional fossil we present. This is very disingenuous on the part of creationists, ask for transitionals and after being presented with one, call it a unique species that is now extinct. Quite the handwaving. Archy represents exactly what we would expect if reptiles were the ancestors of modern birds. Dead end or in a line of transitionals does little to refute this point.

quote:

---

The platapus One, is it a duck with beaver or muskrat features? Two, is it a beaver or muskrat with duck features? or Three, a unique species with features of both? Now, I don't think you would ever try to claim if after finding a fossil in a million years of one of these creatures that they evolved from a duck or a beaver just because they have some common characteristics. By the way, do you think the evolutionists in that future time would be able to reconcile how a mammle could lay eggs or would they even be able to know this fact based on the fossil this animal might leave?

---

Number one, platypi do not have beaks. It is covered in skin, just like every other mammal, unlike the duck which is covered in bone. Number two, they are not a direct descendant of beavers, although they do share a common ancestor with all mammals. The fact that platypi lay eggs even more closely ties us in to our common ancestry with reptiles, since reptiles also lay eggs. It has been made obvious, by your lack of knowledge of the platypus, that your knowledge of mammalian anatomy and physiology is lacking. If you think systematics is so poor that they will use superficial characteristics to classify organisms, then you are sadly mistaken.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-02-2004]

You are citing Harun Yahya. He is an Islamic creationist (real name Adnan Oktar) but there may be some other writers also contributing material under the same pseudonym. The material is very professionally presented for format, and comically incompetant for content. Much of it is a straight repackaging of conventional USA creationism; none of it is based on any understanding or experience of science.By all means, bring forward some ideas from the pages you cite, and discuss them. Just giving a link is not much use. Those of us familiar with this topic area are just inclined to laugh when this source is raised; but you won't appreciate why until you get into substantive discussion.I'll try a start, using the first of your links, and the first example cited. If you want to look at anything else; you bring it up. I am certainly not going to refute the whole thing; this should give a flavour of its quality.From the page: The major flaw of the above extract is thinking that Archaeopteryx is claimed as a primitive ancestor of all birds. That is not what is claimed in good scientific work, or by people in this thread. In fact analysis from over twenty years ago has suggested that Archaeopteryx is a closely related side branch; Confuciusornis has nothing much to do with this.When that is cleared up, all we have is a clear description of another transitional, with a couple of omissions and errors that attempt to minimize just how transitional it is.Archaeopteryx and Confuciusornis are transitional in form, because they have a mix of features which are reptilian and birdlike. But you can't tell from fossils whether or not a given species is directly ancestral to another; although you can sometimes infer when a fossil is a closely related side branch. This is the case with Archaeopteryx; and also with Confuciusornix for that matter.In fact, Confuciusornix is in some respects transitional between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. It is neither one, nor the other, but has features of both.The brief description by Harun Yahya gets some matters correct and also omits a few embarassing details. Here are some clarifications:

• Confuciusornix is almost same age as Archaeopteryx in geological terms, but it still manages to be about 10 to 15 million years younger.
• The beak and feathers are similar to today's birds.
• It does have claws on the wings, like Archaeopteryx, but most people would consider this another example of the mix of features which defines the term "transitional".
• It has some significant skeletcal differences from modern birds. It is another transitional, showing some reptilian features, such a hand still able to grasp with two of the fingers. This fossil thus shows forms transitional between a flying and a grasping hand. The metacarpals (bones between wrist to fingers) are also transitional between the unfused Archaeopteryx and fused in modern birds. The pelvis and legs retain reptilain features also, distinct form modern birds but transitional from ancestral reptilian forms.
• This is (I think) the earliest instance of the pygostyle; which does clearly link it to the birds.
• The claim that it looks very much like modern birds is ridiculous if taken to mean it is the same thing; but perfectly valid if used to mean that it is a transitional showing easily recognizable features of modern birds. It is, in fact, a very ancient bird, and an important piece of the puzzle showing their long evolutionary history.

Cheers -- Sylas

(Minor edit to be clear that the bulleted points are clarifications, and restate some things HY got correct.)

[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-03-2004]

It is a short article you know. However, here are some points you can address.
"A report on the discovery appears in the Nov. 15 issue of the journal Science. Besides Feduccia, [Biologist and ORNITHOLOGIST]authors are Dr. Lianhai Hou of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing and Dr. Larry D. Martin and graduate student Zonghe Zhou of the University of Kansas' Natural History Museum." ...Feduccia said, they have found fossils of a modern-type, probably warm-blooded bird they call Liaoningornis together with Confuciusornis. Unlike the latter, the former had a keeled sternum, which is the earliest evidence of that distinctly bird-like structure, one that acted as a pump for air sacs in the lungs and facilitated longer flights. All modern flying birds show that keeled breastbone. "We would expect that the common ancestor of the two groups -- which we call `Sauriurine' for reptile-like and `Ornithurine' for bird-like -- predates Archaeopteryx and that we may reasonably search for birds in Middle Jurassic and older beds," Feduccia said."This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory that birds descended from dinosaurs. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are primarily Late Cretaceous in age and are younger than Archaeopteryx by more than 76 million years."Writing in volume two of their Modern Creation Trilogy on this matter in regard to Archaeopteryx, Henry Morris and John Morris stated:"Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a transition between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a sceatherthat is, a half-scale, half-featheror a linghalf-leg, half-wingor, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence (1996, 2:70)."More problems:
1. The hands of theropod dinosaurs and birds differ in important ways.
2. Theropod wishbones differ significantly from those of birds.3. Avian lungs are very complex and could not have evolved from theropod dinosaur lungs.4. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have been exclusively ground dwellers; thus, flight would have had to originate from the cursorial or ground-up theory, which many scientists do not accept5. The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight.6. The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist boneknown in only four species. Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx.7. The time problem. Theropod dinosaurs are found too recently in the fossil record to have given rise to Archaeopteryx.

quote:

---

"Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of useful and functioning structures found also in other creatures, not a transition between them. A true transitional structure would be, say, a sceatherthat is, a half-scale, half-featheror a linghalf-leg, half-wingor, perhaps a half-evolved heart or liver or eye. Such transitional structures, however, would not survive in any struggle for existence (1996, 2:70)."
  —Morris and Morris via ex libres

---

Again, more hand-waving. Archy obviously had already developed full feathers, as well as some characteristics found in birds. Archy also has obvious reptillian features. There is no such thing as a "half-evolved" structure. Everything IS fully evolved, as it has come about through evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore, such systems would operate just fine. If the Earth were around for another 4.5 billion years, would we look back and say that organisms today were only "half-evolved". I think not. This is more an expose on uninformed creationists than it is on the weak points of the Archy fossils.

You have begun with a quotation from a press release by Alan Feduccia from 1996, that I have not seen cited previously in the thread. Can you keep track of your references, please? Feduccia will be immediately familiar to people interested in this subject. He is, like every other scientist working on these fossils, an evolutionist, who recognizes that all the fossils we are discussing are transitional. The press release omits aspects of Liaoningornis which distinguish it from birds in the present; such as teeth. The questions at issue are some of the details of phylogentic relationships.Basically, this release focuses on the question of how far back we go for the last common ancestor of birds and dinosaurs. It does not call into to question the status of Archaeopteryx, or Lioningornis, or Confuciusornis, as transitional forms that show aspects of the lineage of birds and their relationship to reptilian ancestors.Most scientists consider that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs. Feduccia and a handful of others consider the common ancestor to be further back -- though technically still an early dinosaur.One contentious problem with Liaoningornis is dating of the strata in which this fossil was found. One view dates it from 137 to 141 million years bp; and others date it as recently as 121 million years bp. Although these ages are similar to within 20%, we now have so many transitional forms that accurate ages are needed to to help place them in relation to each other.Feduccia puts his finger right on the button in Ornithologist and Evolutionary Biologist Alan Feduccia Plucking Apart the Dino-Birds (Discover Vol 24, No 2, Feb 2003): Can't mince words on that one... that is ignorant nonsense. What Morris calls a true transitional structure is a strawman and has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. What evolution requires, and finds, are well adapted transitional forms made up of a mosaic of useful and functioning structures showing relationships to two different known distinct forms.Of your other points, which I have not quoted, (1) and (2) are as expected for transitionals. (3) is an assertion without argument or evidence. (4)..(7) are from Feduccia's side of the argument for theropods being a distinct side branch to birds; which is a distinct matter entirely, of no relevance whatsoever to the obvious transitional status of the fossils in question.Cheers -- Sylas

Now this is interesting. When I first replied to this post of yours, you had two bare links with no comment. Now, a mere few hours later, I find you've gone back after my post and substantively altered yours - so that now mine looks ridiculous. Is this a new creationist tactic from "Evolution Slaying for Dummies (TM)"? Kendemeyer does the same thing. It isn't one that I've encountered in the typical creationist repertoire.To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're unfamiliar with discussion board etiquette. If, after someone replies, you feel that a substantive re-work of your original post is needed (i.e., beyond correcting simple grammatical or typographical errors), the appropriate methodology is to add a new post to clarify or modify. This keeps the flow of discussion headed in the right direction without suspicions of dishonesty or lack of integrity.Now I have to go back and respond once again to a post to which I ALREADY replied, to avoid potential charges that I'm ignoring the substance of your remarks. You wouldn't be planning anything underhanded like that, now would you? However, that is not the definition of transitional form as commonly understood. A transitional form is one which bears features of two or more taxa. It is NOT necessarily expected to be in the lineal descent (i.e., A begat B). In fact, the further back you go, the more likely a given fossil will represent a sister or cousin, not an ancestor. Archy falls into this category - most paleontologists don't consider it the ancestor of birds. They DO consider it representative of what a putative ancestor of birds would look like at that point in time, with features predicted by evolution. The fact that Archy itself is difficult to categorize in any but an arbitrary fashion as falling into the "bird" or "reptile" category is indicative of its transitional status. Depending on who you ask, Archy will be classed as one or the other. Right - it has features of both. As I mentioned, depending on who you ask it will be classed as one or the other (your points one and two). This is more or less arbitrary based on whether the individual classifying it thinks that the bird-like features are more important than the reptile bits, or vice-versa. This is the quintissential example of transitional. As to your point three, you may "opt" for it, but the evidence of the fossil features itself falsifies your contention. After all, if it had no relation to either group, why would it share features of both, rather than neither? This is simply silly. A platapus isn't a transitional. It doesn't have features of a duck. It doesn't have features of a beaver or muskrat. In fact, I can't think of any placental mammal with which it shares features of any kind. It's a monotreme - a nearly extinct lineage totally distinct from both marsupials and placental mammals. Its closest relative is a kind of anteater-looking critter called an echidna. There are only three species of monotremes left on the planet - not unsurprising when you consider that its relatively primitive plumbing and other features place monotremes down at the base of the mammalian tree. Of course they can. We can find primitive monotremes that are definitely monotremes based on the particular skeletal adaptations needed for egg-laying. That's how we know they're monotremes in the first place. Besides, most of the monotreme fossils that have been found, including a 110 myo fossil ancestor of the platypus, bear more resemblance to the therapsids (i.e., primitive mammal-like reptiles) than they do to modern mammals. They're a transitional, of course, but not the one you're on about.

ex libres, you ever see Protoavis?If you have, you might also want to notice that it had teeth, fingers, and a long bony tail. It does pose problems to the dinosaur-bird proponents, but it does not refute the fact that birds are decended from a group of reptiles.Too bad Protoavis was neglected.[btw, admins, isn't this the Human origins forum, not Bird Origins?]

quote:

---

There are many unique species which are now extinct (the Dodo bird for one. How many reptiles do you know that have feathers or are warm blooded, or have a sternum.

---

Well then, show me the extinct birds that has long bony tails.Feathered reptiles: Caudipteryx, Microraptor gui
Reptiles with sternum: Archaeopteryx, some raptors

quote:

---

No. I don't know who Harun Yahya is. If it sounds like him perhaps you heard him refer to the same quotes I did and I do paraphrase at time info. from my research which comes from many different sources maybe one of his. If so, I apologize for having a like mind; I don't apologize for being correct.

---

You quoted from DarwinismRefuted.com, a website affiliated to Harun Yahya &co. the most successful creationist franchise outside USA. You shouldn't apologize for being correct, because you are not being correct.