Archaeopteryx and Dino-Bird Evolution

"Equine" is not a species. Equus, which you may be thinking of, is a genus, containing the different species you've mentioned above. Right. German Shepards and Gray Wolves are two different species. The fact that one evolved from the other is proof of what you call "transspecific evolution." What else would the evolution of one species from another be expected to prove? No, they really don't. The origins of life is the province of biochemists, because the origin on life is a chemical problem.Evolutionary biologists study the history and diversity of species on Earth. Isn't that a pretty powerful indication that you're wrong about evolution? That the evidentiary basis for the theory you dismiss is considerably better developed than you're prepared to admit? Ah, right. Conspiracy theories. That's always a convincing argument. Canidae is a family that contains wolves, dogs, foxes, and jackals. It's a very ancient family that has grown to include a large number of species that cannot possibly interbreed, thus providing a handy proof of macroevolution and the power of random mutation and natural selection to result in completely new species. Which disproves the idea of using common names as a basis for species identification. But for some reason, you persist in doing so. You will not understand how evolution is possible until you understand the organization of living things, and you cannot do that merely by looking at what organisms are called.

We've performed experiments that prove that random mutation is able to give rise to new traits that weren't there before, or weren't present in a recessive form. We performed these experiments on organisms that have haploid genetics and therefore have no such thing as recessive traits. In those populations, under appropriate conditions, new traits are observed anyway. Because these organisms can have no recessive traits, we know that mutation is the source of the new observations. This is perhaps your deepest mistake. Individual organisms do not evolve, so talk about "compulsions" is meaningless. Populations evolve, and populations are only under the "compulsion" to be shaped by their environment. And we know that environments exist that will shape unicellular organisms into multicellular ones. So what you term "science fiction", in the best tradition of science fiction, has become science fact. Unicellular life gave rise to complex multicellular life. We've seen it happen in experiments. There's absolutely no evidence of this. No experiment has ever shown a limit to the capacity of DNA to mutate into new sequences. I do. You don't, though. Circular reasoning. If you define macroevolution as the development of one species from another - which no serious creationist does, by the way; you're way out on your own here, just to warn you - then you're forced to concede that macroevolution has been observed to happen, because we've seen old species give rise to new ones in countless trials and experiments. If you insist on defining macroevolution in that way, then you're forced to admit that it occurs. I suggest you find a new way to define it, as all the other creationists had to do.

Darwin never held this view. In fact Darwin's work was a specific rebuttal of this form of "evolution", most prominently championed by Lamarck (and largely associated with his name.) Besides your phenominal misunderstanding of the processes of evolution? Right. And what was the source of those unique genes? Mutation.Mutation, combined with natural selection, is evolution. The Orkin man would be mistaken to point to those two roaches as having evolved, you're correct.That's because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And the population of roaches evolved - it evolved resistance to pesticide.

What leads you to believe that the transitional appendage between "leg" and "wing" is "stump"?I mean, did that make sense when you typed it, or what? I just don't follow. Do you have a citation for this? My own brief research seems to confirm what I initally suspected - you're completely wrong. From what I can tell, appendectal vermiform processes are present in lieu of the cecum of all mammals who don't have a cellulose-heavy diet.You're entitled to your opinion, of course; not to your own facts.