Really? Okay: because what we have to make animal wings out of is bone, muscle, and skin. At a certain size, a wing made out of those materials is going to be unable to support its own weight--the structural material (bone) isn't strong enough. And at a certain size, the muscles that make those wings flap are going to have to be attached to the body at a place strong enough to support the stresses involved. Do you understand that there are similar limitations to the size of an airplane?
hould be seeing more animals flying, heavier animals flying and for that matter animals swimming, AND flying and running their own businesses on the side by now, logically speaking.
Um...why? Just because something could evolve, doesn't mean it will evolve. This is something you made up, not something evolution promises.
why not say for instance didn't all mice, or even some mice or some rats, etc. develop wings like their bat cousins did?
Because there are still ecological niches for mice and rats as they are. The bats managed to exploit a new one, but that doesn't mean the old one disappeared. You're stuck on this idea that there is some standard of "better" that evolution always tends towards and that every animal has to always be changing in that direction.
Why didn't they develop pouches like kangaroos, this would be very useful I would think when flying.
There is, in fact, a flying marsupial.
WOW, how utterly convenient for you!
You asked a dumb question--don't blame me because you don't like the answer. You really think there's an answer for why a random event doesn't happen?
As the rest of your post trails off into your usual combination of ignorance, bluster, and rudeness, I'm starting to regret that I ever tried to answer your questions reasonably and respectfully.
But the point is, why haven't animals evolved to overcome all these limitations? After all, they started out as single celled organisms that overcame ALL KINDS of other things to eventually swim, fly and so forth in the first place.
Intelligence and design have allowed man to fly gigantic heavy planes, which was impossible with the technology available in 1903. And now, we're flying space shuttles in space, in the span of less than 100 years. An analogy for evolution would be a kangaroo jumping twice as far as before over 50 million years.
So what's preventing them from taking the next step?
So why can't animals evolve lighter weight, but superstrong bones to support more weight?
Kind of like we created a lightweight plane in 1903 that eventually led to the technology that allowed a multi-ton 747 to fly...WHY isn't this occuring in nature?
Do you forsee kangaroos that can jump the length of a football field in the next ga-jillion years?
Um...why? Just because something could evolve, doesn't mean it will evolve. This is something you made up, not something evolution promises.
Uhhhh WHY NOT? If it could evolve, what's stopping it? If it's supposed to be beneficial to the animal as evolution very much DOES claim with natural selection, why don't a few animals swim, fly AND flip pancakes?
Because there are still ecological niches for mice and rats as they are. The bats managed to exploit a new one, but that doesn't mean the old one disappeared. You're stuck on this idea that there is some standard of "better" that evolution always tends towards and that every animal has to always be changing in that direction.
But why did some fly and some remain behind? You can't say it was because of a niche, because some that occupied the same niche did, some didn't. What you get stuck on is excusing some invisible UN-natural force on limiting evolution. Of all the ga-jillions of possibilities, why aren't we seeing more and more impressive species jumps in shorter amounts of time? AND what makes it take ga-jillions of years in the first place? (Other than liberal convenience.)
You asked a dumb question--don't blame me because you don't like the answer. You really think there's an answer for why a random event doesn't happen?
As the rest of your post trails off into your usual combination of ignorance, bluster, and rudeness, I'm starting to regret that I ever tried to answer your questions reasonably and respectfully.
Thanks, I think this illustrates what children are up against when they encounter projecting liberal evo-cultists when serious examination takes place of their cult, as opposed to the sham of peer review.
Don't blame me for the obvious frustration you're having with your cult's inadequcies, get some help from a deprogrammer instead!