Don't let any facts get in your way, doc!
The above is a Confuciusornis sanctus forelimb.
Don't let any facts get in your way, doc!
The above is a Confuciusornis sanctus forelimb.
LOL! ~~ 143 posted on 06/19/2003 11:26 PM PDT by the_doc
You know what the funniest thing of all is, Vade? You don't even realize why "the_doc" is laughing at you. Perhaps he doesn't "suffer Fools gladly". Or perhaps he is just too Charitable a Christian to blatantly make sport of you.
I, however, am not. I am more-or-less an insufferable Cad... I am a Boor. A Lout. An incarnate superabundance of caustic solipsism (Well, unlike so many "sensitive 90's Men", at least I don't cower at being called "egotistical" and "arrogant" -- I freely admit the charge).
So howzabout I let you "in" on the Joke?
Here's the scoop:
If we look at the bat's wing, it has the simplistic appearance of a flap of skin on a long, thin bone which reaches out from an upper body appendage somewhat like a rat's foreleg. But the question is, How did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?
Or maybe I should say that this is the typical evolutionists' question. A better scientist would have asked, Did the "thumb" of the rat's foreleg develop this elongation and skin covering?
Anyway, if we assume that it did happen, and if we go on to ask ourselves how it did, we should notice that it didn't. But the diehard evolutionists don't notice this. They just invoke the presuppositional notion that a macroevolutionary change (i.e., yielding wing formation) took place through a summation of microevolutionary changes. This is their answer to the "How did it happen?" question. But it's no answer, really, because it is not at all scientific. It's just presuppositional. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't work. Their presupposition is demonstrably false.
I could add, out of my own amateur observations, that the Hollow Bones enjoyed by Bats (alone among Mammals) would also be helpful... it's not much use to a Rat to be structurally-fragile while living on the Ground; but as a Flying critter, you need those Hollow Bones to stay airborne... if you can get airborne in the first place. Please be sure to develop them at the same time as Wings, otherwise you're kinda screwed...
In response.... you offered him a non-transitional BIRD.
Here is one "competent" (by which I mean, "evolutionist", just to salve your biases) artist's rendition of the Confuciusornis...
...Courtesy of the Basel Museum of Natural History.
Oh, look at that! It's a BIRD!!
Why, it's not a Bat at all!! In fact, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Phylogenetic Column, endeavoring to confuse Class Mammalia of Phylum Chordata with Class Aves of Phylum Chordata.
And not only that, you've somehow managed to hopelessly FUBAR the entire Evolutionary Chronological-Fossil Column, confusing a non-transitional, feather-winged BIRD which allegedly dates from 150 Million Years BC, with a skin-winged MAMMAL which appeared (fully-formed) in the Fossil Record allegedly at least 100 MILLION YEARS later?
Let's not even discuss the Bat's (apparently functionally-perfect, from the inception of the species) Sonar, it's just too embarassing. After all, what's a little matter of f*cking up the entire phylogenetic and chronological evolutionary "record", between friends?
Heck, I'm prepared to be charitable. In fact, I shall (in this one case) even be more Charitable than "The_Doc".
He just Laughed at you. But I shall offer you a fair choice:
Please advise.
Best, OP