Welcome to the fray, Pompuspom. I did a double take on the screen-name (m
can look like r n ...)
msg 116 writes:
Can coal be carbon dated? It is carbon isn't it? And how does the carbon date work on carbon that is supposed to be 200 million'ish years old?
This is off-topic here (see
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III for a topic to continue any discussion on this) but I would like to point out one thing:
It is very easy to determine the extent of possible dating of objects by carbon 14 from a google on the topic. The limit for accurate dates is 50,000 years. Do a google on "carbon dating limits" and on "carbon dating problems" and see what the scientists in the field have to say (a good source is
Dr. Roger Wiens - Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective)
The point is that ignorance is easy to overcome with a little study -- if you want to -- but failure to even make the attempt is a different matter. It's the issue of doing your homework before you make a statement based on ignorance.
Enough have answered on the transitional fossils bit for now, so I will wait to see what the response is.
Pompuspom, msg 128 writes:
A bat has wings formed by very long fingers, obviously. Now consider, what advantage is a slight elongation of the fingers in one mutated animal?
I see arachnophilia has already addressed this to some extent, but let me add some details:
You're starting at the wrong end. Look at flying squirrels that glide from tree to tree with a membrane that stretches from the forearm to the hindleg.
Flying Squirrel (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
Compare this to a non-flying squirrel
Jumping Red Squirrel (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
All you need to start with is an aboreal animal jumping from tree to tree, and those that evolve more membrane between arm and body will jump further.
There is a very obvious evolutionary advantage to being able to jump further, whether it is to get food or to evade predators, and the disadvantage of a little extra skin does not hinder the activity of the flying squirrels.
NOW, what we see in a bat wing,
Bat Wing (Website chosen at random from Google Images)
Is the same kind of development of a membrane between the forearm and the hindlegs, carried the next logical step -- filling in between the hindlegs and the tail, and extending out the fingers of the hand, and then filling in between the fingers as the fingers become extended.
As the animal becomes more adapted to flight rather than just gliding, the membrane will increase in size and the bones will elongate to support the membrane better and the muscles will adapt to power the wings -- as they can (there are limits due to mass versus surface area).
There is no wonder in how bat wings could evolve.
But also, your argument from incredulity:
... what advantage is a slight elongation of the fingers in one mutated animal?
Is also contradicted by factual evidence. We also have
Wallace's Flying Frog (Website chosen at random from Google images). Here we have an organism with elongated fingers, sufficient webbing only between the fingers and toes to allow the animal to glide for long distances from tree to tree, and it is surviving quite nicely.
Your opinion of what can and cannot survive is wrong. Rather than impose any kind of limit on what can and cannot happen in real life we see that it is your failure {imagination\understanding\homework} that is the problem.
Pompuspom msg 134 writes:
I had a quick peek at one of these links ... There is a lot of text.
That is what doing your homework entails eh? Actually learning what you are about to talk about, actually learning what you want to know instead of making it up as you go along. Remember that you are making comments about a subject that other people have spent their life studying: while they don't expect you to try to become an expert in their field, they do think you need at least learn the rudimentary basics.
... I am absolutly convinced that it is not true. So convinced that I am open to any evidence to challenge my thought.
Contradiction.
Being absolutely convinced that it is not true is NOT being open to evidence that it is true. You are either one or the other.
Hang on a minute, could you please supply me with evidence that this animal evolved into a horse? 'Don't just say it did'.
Again arachnophilia has addressed this, but we also have a thread that discusses some of this (that Christian started):
evolutionary chain, with the horses discussion starting
at message 143.
I fully expect that we will once again see a lack of doing your homework as the basis for more ill-formed opinion(s). People who want to learn do their homework.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2