XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
      
   On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:24:17 -0600, Virgil  wrote:   
      
   >In article , mur@.not.   
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>  Unless it was successful right from the start the transitional limbs   
   >>  that couldn't make the animals fly would have been a handicap   
   >>  instead of a benefit   
   >   
   >Not so. Feathers   
      
       I was referring to limbs, not feathers.   
      
   >were originally  developed either for sexual display or   
   >warmth or both, and still are important for both uses, and in a number   
   >of species have apparently never been used for flying.   
   >   
   >And the original purposes of all sorts of things that various species   
   >have developed are known to be totally unrelated to their present use.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Again there is no similarity, and you STILL have no transition   
   >> animals to use as examples.   
   >   
   >That there are gaps, often huge gaps, in the current evidence for a   
   >continuous evolutionary tree is only an artifact of the rarity of   
   >preservation of such evidence. That as much has been found so quickly is   
   >almost miraculous (only a few people have been looking and only been   
   >looking for about 150 years on a huge Earth much of which is effectively   
   >inaccessible).   
      
       Maybe things will seem different if the gaps are eventually filled. But   
   they   
   aren't different yet since the gaps still exist. There's also the fact that   
   there are no good examples of animals in transition still today as there should   
   be if it all happened by chance.   
      
   >> Instead of having none you should have a   
   >> number of them IF evolution happened only by chance.   
   >   
   > That assumes that transitions were the standard instead of the   
   >exception. But the most successful species remain effectively unchanged   
   >for many millions of years, usually until relatively sudden changes in   
   >their environments forces relatively rapid adaptions to their new   
   >environments.   
   >   
   >> The fact that   
   >> you don't have a number of them is evidence that it did not happen   
   >> only by chance.   
   >   
   >  Physics has been around at least since Newton and is still incomplete   
   >(the big bang is not the only origin hypothesis still around and there   
   >are still a number of variations even within the the big bang hypothesis   
   >not yet eliminated) so why expect evolution to be in finalized?   
      
       Until it is, and maybe even if it ever is, there way things are is still   
   evidence of God's influence even if there never was any.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)