[microgood]

Microevolution is a term - when used by creationists - that is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles

I think a better analogy would be the difference between you child being born with a few less hairs than their parents versus being born with fully functional wings. I know evolutionists would argue the wing slowly develops over millions of years so would they just be lumps for a while, and then one day they are actually functional.

Of course we have all sorts of species with body parts which obviously do not work now but will be useful in a few million years.

[exDemMom]

I think a better analogy would be the difference between you child being born with a few less hairs than their parents versus being born with fully functional wings. I know evolutionists would argue the wing slowly develops over millions of years so would they just be lumps for a while, and then one day they are actually functional.

Of course we have all sorts of species with body parts which obviously do not work now but will be useful in a few million years.

Not at all. The evolutionary view is that the various body parts had other functions before they had the functions they have now. Or that the functions and shapes of the body parts changed together.

A vertebrate's wing is an arm that is specialized for flight. Before it became specialized for flight, it was specialized for gliding. Before gliding, the animal jumped--obviously, certain arm shapes would be better than others for jumping, and the animals having those arm shapes would be better suited for jumping than animals with different arm shapes. And so on and so on. There are plenty of examples of animals with arms that are at different points along the way to becoming fully functional wings.