Cheeseburger: Such a comment is a misrepresentation of hypotheses within natural history. The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model nor expectation that they might ever be empirically falsifiable. Wibble's suggestion above is a progression rooted in obscerved naturalistic phenomena, accepted naturalistic processes and potentially leaving naturalistic traces. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story.
Look that won't change the fact you have an appallingly weak case, logically speaking. Can you show me an elephant in nature right now that is born without ivory since they are nearly extinct because of humans hunting them? No? So if evolution can't even come up with a lack of ivory tusk, why should I ever believe it has the power to give various flight apparatus in bats, pterosaurs and birds? For it to happen once would be staggering beyond words, but when we look at the sophistication of those designs, intelligent design of the most immense proportion, is the only logical cause.
Cheeseburger: The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story.
The problem with that argument is that you have no way to verify what you are saying. How can you know how long this was a belief? Do you know when that long held belief began? Do you know that belief preceded the Genesis account?
So to just say that was a story invented to explain the belief in one less rib bone, is just an assertion.
Cheeseburger: The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model
Oh forgive me then I shall correct myself, Wibble offered a story. A story that an isolated population can sprout wings because they would be, "useful" and not leave a trace, the same as everything else in history, that also left no trace.
Meanwhile in reality-land, all we find littered in the fossils is complete fliers, completely designed, without any hint that evolution created them, meaning parsimoniously I am afraid that favours a designer immensely more than any evolution story, and studying population genetics in micro evolution, I am afraid doesn't give an ounce of credibility to this macro story.
Who's to say that a mutation wouldn't emerge in time? It's possible that it may already have done so but happened not to fix due to S@xual selection.
Given that men are more prone to abdominal muscularity that could obscure the floating ribs it seems plausible that the missing rib would be perennial fallacy.
Those portions of genesis with an apparent Babylonian influence (compare genesis 2-3 with Ezekiel 28, the latter acknowledged to have been written during the captivity) often serve as explanations of phenomena - the Tower of Babel explains diversity of language, Noah explains rainbows and the origins of meat and alcohol consumption etc. In scholarly terms such passages would be associated with the punning jahwist author.
Design as more parsimonious:
Really? Wouldn't it double the cause of biological diversity to naturalistic evolution at a micro level plus the intercession of a designer at macro?