Moreover, as I note, you have not told us what purpose the arm served when it was 20% of the way to being a wing, what purpose when 40% of the way, what purpose when 60% of the way etc. etc. You haven't told us how the flow-through heart and lungs evolved or what purpose a heart halfway such a transition might serve, oer even how it might work.
Basically, all I ever really see from you is a bunch of ballyhooing and BS claims to have refuted everybody else on the field along with claims that everybody else owes you apologies.
Don't hold your breath.
It's not obvious to me that you wre ever making any sort of a point other than posting a few images and that buys you anything ONLY if everybody in the house agrees to view any evidence of any sort of change as evidence of change by evolutionary processes. Not only do I not buy that, but you haven't even started to answer a fairly sizable number of questions, and all you've really shown us is pictures of primative birds whose wings still had features of claws.You are utterly on the wrong page. Not that I don't stand by Confuciusornis sanctus as an important clue to the origin of birds, but your attack on punctuated equilibrium was refuted in Divine Design, Thread III, Post 126. I reluctantly copy forward to prevent further confusion.
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils).FWIW, that primitive bird's forelimb is as close as I can imagine to "half claw, half wing." One of your FPDDs (Frequently-Posted Dumb-Dumbisms) says that can't happen.Again, you attempt to bludgeon others with your own ignorance:
Speciation by Punctuated Equilbrium.
Note that there's more than logic involved. There's evidence. And more evidence. And more evidence. And more evidence. And more evidence.
And I already gave you the TalkOrigins page on vertebrate intermediate fossils. You have failed to rebut.
2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
Inbreeding became a problem for the cheetah species, which has come through such a bottleneck in the later Pleistocene that they can give skin grafts to each other and all tend to be susceptible to the same feline distemper strains. But most species bottlenecks aren't that small. (And how does creationism explain that? All the species on the Ark supposedly went through an even smaller bottleneck only 5-6 thousand years ago.)
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
Hardly necessary, although not impossible. After the kind of catastrophe that isolates a lot of species, a lot of others are extinct and a given ecological niche is just as likely to be empty or at least very uncrowded.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
Long periods of stasis are punctuated by catastrophism. Again you are wilfully(?) ignorant.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds.
Most species that go to the edge of extinction go over. So?
You want 20 percent of the way to a wing? Is this close enough?
And why would such a thing develop? Maneuverability. If you don't have the longest legs out there, get maneuverable or get eaten.
You have been answered on every bit of this before, but you're still born new on square one every thread.