That's not a source. A source is a scientific paper from a peer-reviewed journal. There is nothing in your URL that indicates that's what you are referring us to.

With that sort of address, a cautious internet user would NEVER link to it in case it's a virus site.

How many papers have you looked at on this fossil, and how many claim it's "not different" from a modern bird?

Here is a photograph of a pair of confuciusornis, if you look very carefully you can see (even in this poor product shot from a chinese fossil sales catalog) that there are clearly clawed talons on the wings as well as on the legs.

http://reys.biz/blog/wp-content/uploads/...

This second photo (the one below, from wikipedia) is better, and the hook-like claws on the leading edge of the wings are really obvious. You can believe whatever you want, but I think I would conclude that the "book" you have listed above is creationist/religious propaganda.

I recommend that people should trust the evidence of their own eyes, rather than the false claims in some book written by a guy (who is apparently trying to sell you a religion, but clearly fails at science.)

Anyone can write a book but if you examine the evidence for yourself, the physical evidence, not just what some guy writes in a book, I think you will conclude that these are a very good example of one of those "transitional" species that creationists like him, frequently try to claim "don't exist".

I looking from this source:

http://fs.fmanager.net/files/flashpages/index.php?bookid=152365

it said that confuciusornis identical to that of present-day birds, not different to modern birds