No, a rational person might actually just appreciat the fact that they can glide. They might actually also look at how they do it. But to postulate that they are transitional species wouldn't even come to my mind. Especially without any evidence that they'd ever existed in any other form but what they are now. You know, giving ground for a postulation that they were changing. I would generally posit that absent any evidence of change, assuming change bears the responsibility of proving it rather than saying it's possible and then saying "every living thing today is in transition". I can say equally as absurd things just as easily. It doesn't mean I'm any more or less right than you. Nor does it make either of us truth tellers. You can't say that you observed a change in foxes or squirrels that spontaniously allowed one bread to glide. Nor can you say that a time ever existed that they couldn't do this. I know I've said it' but, it's worth repeating things that we can truthfully say. So you have no basis for saying that these are in transition because you are not accounting for what you DON'T know. The fact is that the possibilities do not stop at your theory's edge. In absence of proof for your "theory", I think I'd leave well enough alone. But that would deny you the chance to shape politics and force your views on others via science.. right.
Obviously.
Especially without any evidence that they'd ever existed in any other form but what they are now.
You mean besides the DNA evidence (i.e. the patterns of protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses), the morphological evidence, the anatomical parahomology evidence, the molecular parahomology evidence, the cladistic evidence, the evidence of the chronology of common ancestors, the molecular vestige evidence, the evidence of past biogeography, and so on?
Well, yeah, other than that, there's not much...
You know, giving ground for a postulation that they were changing.
See above.
I would generally posit that absent any evidence of change, assuming change bears the responsibility of proving it rather than saying it's possible and then saying "every living thing today is in transition".
So what would you "generally posit" given evidence such as I mention above?
I can say equally as absurd things just as easily.
Clearly.
It doesn't mean I'm any more or less right than you.
No, what makes you less right than us is your almost complete unfamiliarity with the subject.