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.
Sorry, I'd have to say produce a pre-gliding squirrel and then prove it. You can't, so I think the rest of your ramble and it's built in assumptions are worth precisley squat.
So what would you "generally posit" given evidence such as I mention above?
Evidence? Evidence of what? I think I've deliniated clearly the difference between theory and fact, the difference between having something verses having evidence of it, having evidence vs. having evidence that clearly supports a position. Produce a pre-flying squirrel and prove that flying squirrels developed from it. And prove it isn't a genetic trait for squirrels to be able to produce flying squirrels as a trait. Ah, we haven't quite got there yet have we. Yes, I understand how you slant things to an appearance. I've dealt with it in archeology in trying to pick through all the opinion to get to facts. One of my favorites now days is the obfuscation that slaves couldn't have built the pyramids because some of the lead workers were buried onsite and a Pharaoh never would have allowed a slave to be buried near him.. That assumes a lot. So do you. You just don't point out in your speil what the assumptions are. Sorry.
No, what makes you less right than us is your almost complete unfamiliarity with the subject.
I see. One has to be an evolutionist to buy evolutionist arguments cause nowhere else can one find support. Which is why so many are begging to differ nowdays. People have had it with the quackery.