> Suppose we have a complex biological feature which we believe probably
> required supernatural intervention. Now suppose this feature is found
> in multiple groups whose common ancesters go back well before the first
> appearance of that feature? Should we hypothesize multiple instances of
> supernatural intervention to achieve similar features? Does this seem
> less "elegant" than a single intervention? Should we hypothesize a
> single intervention with a very long dormancy? Or would this pattern
> suggest to you that, perhaps, that *particular* feature probably arose
> through natural mechanisms? If so, why?
>
This is a problem that have all explanations(atheist evolution, theist
evolution, progressive creation ....) which interpret the fossil evidence
as showing the 'creation' of animals and plants. For me ,that's not a
problem because I believe that all kinds of animals where directly created
before all layers where laid down.That an animal who is living while the
layers are being laid down needn't be fossilized is shown by some living
fossils (e,g. latimeria) who are found in deeper layers and today but nt
in the intermediate ones.It's also not possible to conclude that that
animals whose fossil remains aren't found in some layers didn't exist then.
God bless you
Oliver