Yes, there are gaps. I know you want fossil evidence for every stage of every change from the dinosaur arm to the bird's wing, in neat chronological progression, but I don't think you're ever going to get it. For one thing, scientists no longer look for a linear progression from dinosaurs to birds, and for another, fossils are rare, period. So maybe the animal that had the bird-like scapula 90 million years ago was not a direct ancestor of today's birds. But if none of the scapulae from 150 MYA look like birds, and then some from 90 MYA do, I think it's fair to call that an evolutionary step. Now, that particular animal's wrist might not look like today's birds, but another animal's wrist from 80 MYA does, while no animal from 150 MYA does. So now we've got two of the traits characterizing today's birds appearing in the fossil record sometime between 150 and 80 MYA. Neither one of them might have been the direct ancestor of today's birds, but there is a general progression in forelimb characteristics from dinosaur arm to bird wing. I know you don't even accept the dates, so I don't expect you to accept the progression. But I have no problem with dating methods, so I accept the evidence and the interpretation.
Also, note that the page I linked to is from "Dino-World," which specializes in poster-size summaries of evolutionary information. You can't expect a poster to present every piece of evidence available. The Wikipedia entry on Origin of Birds has references to a lot more sources, including evidence from a lot more biological systems than just the skeleton.
few Homological similarities can’t be used as an argument
Your links don't demonstrate that. What the Wells article does is to examine some of the possible explanations for homological similarities and show that so far, none of them by themselves has been proven sufficient to explain all the similarities. He hasn't eliminated the possibility that some might be explained one way and some another, or that the explanation might require more than one factor working together.
Wells's conclusion is merely that "Darwinian evolution cannot claim to have demonstrated scientifically that living things are undesigned." Most evolutionary scientists aren't trying to prove that--it's awful hard to prove a negative. If Wells thinks living things are designed, let him try to demonstrate that scientifically. He can start with the scapula--what did the designer do, and how, and when, to bring about the introduction of a birdlike scapula in animals that lived between 150 and 80 MYA? Or is that one of those questions that's not worth asking?
"Yes, there are gaps. I know you want fossil evidence for every stage of every change from the dinosaur arm to the bird's wing, in neat chronological progression, but I don't think you're ever going to get it. For one thing, scientists no longer look for a linear progression from dinosaurs to birds, and for another, fossils are rare, period. So maybe the animal that had the bird-like scapula 90 million years ago was not a direct ancestor of today's birds. But if none of the scapulae from 150 MYA look like birds, and then some from 90 MYA do, I think it's fair to call that an evolutionary step. Now, that particular animal's wrist might not look like today's birds, but another animal's wrist from 80 MYA does, while no animal from 150 MYA does. So now we've got two of the traits characterizing today's birds appearing in the fossil record sometime between 150 and 80 MYA. Neither one of them might have been the direct ancestor of today's birds, but there is a general progression in forelimb characteristics from dinosaur arm to bird wing. I know you don't even accept the dates, so I don't expect you to accept the progression. But I have no problem with dating methods, so I accept the evidence and the interpretation."
[[If Wells thinks living things are designed, let him try to demonstrate that scientifically.]]
They are proving it with IC and hsowing that nature simply can’t overcome the biological impossibilities to produce stepwise IC
[[I know you want fossil evidence for every stage of every change from the dinosaur arm to the bird’s wing, in neat chronological progression, but I don’t think you’re ever going to get it.]]
That’s not what I want- I expect more than setting species that are biologically different next to each other and claiming that because they have common features that they must be related- looking at science this way is paramount to looking at a roundish rock, a tennis ball and orange and claimign htey are related- there’s a tremendous mount of differences between the two
[[what did the designer do, and how, and when, to bring about the introduction of a birdlike scapula in animals that lived between 150 and 80 MYA?]]
First of all you are ASSUMING they are that old- secondly, you are assuming the gap is that large between the two species and you have a priori ruled out a catastrophic event which burried rapidly because in your opinion it never happened and nature laid down layers in nice neat patterns- then, you evidently rule out that a Designer would create somewhat similar features in different species and don’t accept that a similar design can be used between the two- your argument comes after the fact and simply looks at a couple of homological similarities and completely rules out a desinger and is akin to a person stumbling across a toyota, V.W and a Rolls, after they were designed, there would be two camps- 1 claiming they all evolved and are related because ‘they share similar features’ and the other that says they are all uniquely designed and couldn’t have evolved naturally
[[ So now we’ve got two of the traits characterizing today’s birds appearing in the fossil record sometime between 150 and 80 MYA. Neither one of them might have been the direct ancestor of today’s birds, but there is a general progression in forelimb characteristics from dinosaur arm to bird wing.]]
No- what we have are fully formed species with each their own unique designs- To claim the features exampled ‘evovled’ is nothign but a guess/opinion because htere are no progressive fossils that show these features progressing- they just all of a sudden show up in the fossil records- complete and fully functioinal
[[He hasn’t eliminated the possibility that some might be explained one way and some another,]]
But yet ‘science’ books tell us they ARE related and show a progression and don’t cede that another explanation is possible- they just state it as fact.