Look he picked a really absurd example to hypothesize from and it was his faith in his model that allowed him to do that. I am sure he believed it to some degree.
Even nowadays evolutionists use gliding squirrels and the other gliding creatures to suggest that they are in the stage of evolving into a true flying creature.
The whole quote mining thing is another evo red herring anyway. Its very clear what the evolutionist suggests and insinuates, they just like to word it in way that leaves them an out when they get exposed like you have done here.
You cant seriously defend that so you go on the attack at ‘creationists’ again. Its so predictable you are getting tedious.
Flying squirrels are a good example of what a transition from an arboreal leaper to a flier would be, a glider.
Quote mining is a long standing creationist practice, and it is exactly what you tried to do here. Darwin didn't predict that they WOULD evolve into a flying creature, he said that if they did, one would hardly suspect their oceanic origins.
I did seriously defend Darwin's statement. I showed that what you were trying to claim he said was in error from taking it out of context.
I notice that instead of dealing with the notion of transitionals and the power of selective pressure to shape a population you ONCE AGAIN try to make this about me.
This isn't about me, it is about a hominid fossil find and the best methodology to discuss it in a way that leads to further knowledge.
Evolution and science provides a mechanism to discuss this find in a way that furthers knowledge.
Creationism does not. Creationism is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere and gains no knowledge.