Yes, they can show me "microevolving" structures, each of which displays a different feature required to make an arm into a bird's wing. The result is what you would call "macroevolution." No faith required, since I don't start with a conviction that such a process is impossible.
Why must God have NOT used variety in creation?
I never said he couldn't. What I said was that I found that answer personally unsatisfying because it didn't really explain anything. You don't seem to find the questions interesting, so it makes sense that you're happy with that answer.
They did? Got any evidence showing that?
I don't expect you to be swayed by it, but in case you or anyone else are interested in (some of) the evidence:
How Did Rats Grow Wings and Became Bats?
Particularly interesting from the latter: "They found that during early development, both bat and mouse forelimb digits grew at about the same rate relative to their overall gestation periods of 120 and 20 days, respectively. However, roughly halfway through gestation, the bat's third, fourth, and fifth forelimb digits suddenly started to grow much faster.... This observation has lead scientists to consider that the sudden growth may be due to a gene that coded a certain protein (called Bmp2) responsible for bone growth. They have found that the expression of this gene was indeed 30% higher in the developing forelimbs of bats than it was in mice. This indicated that what probably prompted the appearance of bats from mouse-like rodents was a mutation in the gene regulating the Bmp2 gene." Thus showing that mutations need not always be harmful and that small mutations can have large effects.
[[I don’t expect you to be swayed by it, but in case you or anyone else are interested in (some of) the evidence:]]
—[[Unenlagia - 90 MYA
The scapula evolved into a different shape. This allowed this ostrich-size animal to have greater up and down mobility in its arms. It now appears that other dromaeosaurids were able to move their arms this way too.]]—
It ‘evolved’? Really? Where is htis evidence available showing hte evolution of the scapula? I suppose we’re just to take hteir word for it that the scapula ‘evolved’ despite hteir being absolutely zero evidence of it?
—[[Eoalulavis - 125-130 MYA
In this primitive bird, the thumb has developed into an important structure to support the alula, a tuft of feathers that provide flight controls: the ability to run and bank while flying.]]—
Really? Hmmm- got hte eivdnece for the thumb ‘evolving’? No? Again- we’re just supposed to take hteir word for it, be impressed by their fancy ‘charts’ showing completed species, and beleive these species were ‘related’ somehow (despite yet more completely missing evidnece to support htis) and take hteir word for it?
I find it funny that you fully accept wild scenarios that are completely lackign in fossil evidence, yet you find a Fully designed fully functioning species implausible.
—[[Modern Birds - 65 MYA to present
They have small, lightweight bones, large wing surfaces and short tails. Large sternums (breast bones) allow for large flight muscles. These permit them to be excellent flyers]]—
And here we jump from the ‘primitive’ (yet uniquely created, fully formed bird) all the way up to modern (uniquely created, fully formed) birds, with absolutely zero evidence showing hte ‘thumb’ either devolving or evolving- Got some pretty serious gaps there Ha Ha.
[[No faith required, since I don’t start with a conviction that such a process is impossible]
No ‘faith required’ eh? a few Homological similarities can’t be used as an argument
“Homology in Biology
A Problem for Naturalistic Science
Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways. In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: “What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” (de Beer, 1971, p.16 [emphasis added]) Twenty-five years later, the question still has not been answered.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp
“Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.”
“This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.”
A Critique of ‘’29 Evidences for Macroevolution’’ - Part 3
“One cannot take a known pattern of life, claim that pattern as a prediction of evolution, and then use the fact the pattern fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. To be of evidentiary value, the predictions must derive from the hypothesis itself, not be read back into the hypothesis from present knowledge.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp