and by the way- you are STILL ignoring the serious problem of the lack of transitional species that should be littering the earth and easily found- instead- you present contentious scant bone fragments as your 'proof' which are in no way proven, and infact, other evidences point ot hte fact that they are indeed not transitions at all? That's the best evolution can do? Throw up some VERY iffy fragments and call it transitional? Darwin himself admitted that if life evolved, there would be VAST amounts of trial and error going on as species struggled to use the random mutations to their advantage in order to 'evolve' into other species (although Darwin didn't understand that mutations could nbot possibly produce evolution- ) and there should be excessively copious amounts of these 'trial and error' 'transitional' fossils found- yet htere are none- all we find are completed species fossils going back as far as cambrian age when they came on the scene in abundance- fully formed. This is a major problem with the evolution model- one that can't be brushed off by claiming that because a site mentions that a sudden appearance suggests creation, then the FACTS that they present are invalidated- sorry- but the factes are never invalidated until PROVEN wrong by counter facts- Which has never happened in regards to the facts presented about lack of transitional species.
You want more? You haven't read the last material I posted and linked to.
OK, here is more. This is Ichneumon's post #661, from an old thread. It has more information on transitionals than any rational person would ever want to see in one place.
Because I doubt you will even follow the link, it is 59 screenloads (on my system), with many supporting links.
Hand wave that away!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410029/posts?page=661#661