No.

Those three examples will never be able to take off the ground. They'll remain gliders. You could spin it and say they're on a 'dead end' path in evolution if you will, but really for the theory to be valid we need to see many examples of ostritches/kiwis/bugs but reversed so to speak.

Manusjustus and bdbdbdbd have already answered this so I wont because I want to bring up a different point. Surely the fact that you have acknowledged that thousands of species have regressed wings proves you actually accept evolution. Remember organ evolution doesn't just have to be progressive, it can be regressive too.

I'm going to be honest and I really hope that it doesn't offend you. I think you are obviously one of, if not the most intelligent and logical member on the site (and I don't mind admitting that). That aside, I get the feeling with you that you do in fact accept evolution in the back of your mind, but you repress it somehow. When you speak about evolution it's not the same type of denial that many members show, you don't argue in the same way. When I read your arguments I always have a feeling that you are arguing against it but you accept subconsciously, even if you don't consciously.

I hope I didn't offend you, sorry if I was a bit brutally honest there.

Haha, really?

A bit of skin?  I guess bats dont have wings, they have a bit of skin.  And the squirrel uses his tail as a rudder, but I guess its too furry.

That doesnt make any sense.  The flying squirrel and the bat are very similar in regards to how they developed the ability to tranport themselves through air.  Is the squirrel too cute to fly, is that it?

Thanks for the compliments.

That's a great analysis. There's a lot of truth to it. I admit that as a Christian it lies in my interest that evolution is false, while there's lots of evidence pointing towards evolution. I guess this is why ID was 'invented' basically.

But it's also for technical reasons in evo discussions much easier to argue from a 'let's assume this for a second, however...' methodology, like in the regression of wings example.

(btw just a note, many creationist sort of accept organ and trait regression - I dont remember the term for it, but as long as there's no evidence for 'de-novo evolution' it's okay, and from a relgious point of view regression is part of the defect state of the world - you could say sort of a Satanic devolution, or something, which also explains why people early in Biblical history lived 800 years while now diseases and defects kill us early)

Oops!

@ Dr.Grass: I have to admit, I made an assumption about you individually that apparently did not reflect reality.

It's very interesting to see an evolution denier that does NOT have religious grounds for his rejection of it (and the "scientific" objections merely an excuse).

On the other hand, you still betray a willingness to swallow some of the fanatics' feeble excuses.

But before I even start, I have to tell you how disappointing it is to see that most of your "reasons" for not giving the model were tawdry slogans/bullet points that may or may not be related to actual reasons:

- consciousness can't be quantified
What? What does its quantification have to do with its evolution? The only argument I could see being made out of this is that it would be hard to pin down when "human intelligence" came about. (as opposed to whether it in fact happened at all)

- the record of the rocks
All this tells me is that you have a problem of some sort with geology/archaeology or possibly stone monuments.

- ancient civilizations of Peru, Egypt, India etc that seem to contradict the model
...ancient civilizations are disproof of evolution? Oh, please do explain.

- the famous bacterial flagellum (spelling!?)
I presume this is the sad objection of Behe, or possibly you got it through Dembski considering you like the throw teh probabilities around (though I believe Dembski assumes Behe).
For a good explanation of why this objection is bogus, http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
And for a good (very detailed, I skimmed) explanation of how the flagellum may have in fact developed, http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
(But hey, you did spell it right.)

- if all life is is a combination of matter, then if I give you matter you should in theory be able to give me life
Well, if I could construct an environment like Earth was billions of years ago, and you paid me to sit there and stir the pot for about another billion, then I probably could.

And finally, your first real, articulated reason:
- I've had at least 20 out of body experiences where I've verified things in other locations with other people
Is this the sort of verification that can be confirmed (the findings, I mean) with physical evidence? Or is it just a spiritual experience?

Cool. These are very important reasons for my world-view too. OBE's. They're difficult to explain.

I don't see how out of body experiences have anything to do with evolution...

Me neither.  Now they've been brought up though I'd like to know why an OBE would mean evolution is false.