Still peddling shinola, CTD.

Quote
Just have to interrupt and point this out. It's yet another attempt to dodge scientific falsifiability.
And yet you ignore the falsification tests that were listed in the same post (I'll repeat them so you don't have to scroll up):

Can the theory be falsified by fossil evidence?

Yes: if we find a life form that cannot be explained by evolution through common ancestors from other organisms, it is just too different and there are no possible ancestors. A bipedal animal with an entirely different skeletal structure from all other known life would be an example.

Can the theory be falsified by genetic evidence?

Yes: if we find a life form that cannot be explained by evolution through common ancestors from other organisms, it is just too different and there are no possible ancestors. An animal with an entirely different DNA structure from all other known life would be an example.

There are others, but missing fossil evidence of any {B} in any transition from {A} to {C} does not qualify when {A} and {C} are clearly related.

CTD does not show that bats cannot be related to ancient shrew-like animals that we know (it is a fact) existed after the meteor impact 65 million years ago, nor does he even attempt to show that they are not related.

Rather than dodge the issue of falsfiability I have provided ways to do it. The fact that reality does not fall all over itself to provide you with such cases is not my fault - it just demonstrates how robust the theory is.

Quote
Catch that? I know it's a lot of reading. You have my sympathy. I endured it myself.

RAZD is claiming the fossil bat is a transitional between today's bats and an IMAGINARY CRITTER.
Yes, once again CTD mistakes the picture for the evidence.

What evidence? Let me repeat one from the same post (so you don't have to scroll up):

Quote
Working from the other end, the oldest known placental mammal (ie after the therapsids) is a small shrew like animal. From Oldest mammal is found, Origin of mammals is pushed back to 195 million years
Quote
Discovery of the skull of a shrewlike animal the size of a paper clip pushes back the origin of mammals, ... 45 million years earlier than widely believed.

"Previously, the remains of the first true mammals were only found in deposits 150 million years old," significantly younger than the newly discovered skull, notes Alfred Crompton, Fisher Research Professor of Natural History at Harvard University.
Just for the record, 195 million years is not long after the therapsids previously discussed ...
That's one piece of evidence for the ancestor being a small shrew-like animal.

In an earlier post:

Quote
http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/batfacts.htm
Quote
Evidence for bat-like flying mammals appears as far back as the Eocene Epoch, some 50 million years ago; however, the fossil record tracing bat evolution is scanty. Based on similarities of bones and teeth, most authorities agree the bat's ancestors were probably insect eating placental mammals, possibly living in trees, and likely the same group that gave rise to shrews and moles. Bats are not rodents and are not even closely related to that group of mammals.
So there you have it: tree living, insectivore, shrew-like. That is the evidence already cited for what mammals were living after the 65 million year old extinction event. Thus when I say ...

"Thus from some ancestral shrew-like animal 65 million years ago, similar to this {A}:"

... it is based on the evidence we have from fossils of the kind of mammals living then, and not from "imagination" ...

Here's another piece of the evidence, from Bad News for Dinos Was Good News for Mammals

Quote
[Linked Image]
The fossil of a shrewlike animal uncovered a decade ago in Mongolia's Gobi Desert set off one of the most extensive probes ever into the origins of placental mammals, the vast majority of all living mammals (which excludes marsupials and egg-layers, like the platypus).

"Of course you're excited when you find something well preserved from the Cretaceous [period 145 million to 65 million years ago]," says John Wible, curator of mammals at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh ...

To properly age and classify the Mongolian fossil Maelestes gobiensis, estimated to be between 71 million and 75 million years old, Wible and his team compared it with 409 features culled from the skulls, teeth and skeletal remains of other animals ranging in age from present-day mammals to those estimated to have lived over 100 million years ago. In an attempt to determine whether it was a placental mammal, the scientists constructed a tree charting the evolution of placental mammals beginning well in the Cretaceous. "We wanted to find out what our fossil was," Wible says, "and we wanted to test whether any of [the other] Cretaceous fossils could be placentals."

Wible and his colleagues report in Nature that when they finished analyzing and classifying the specimens, they discovered that none dating back to the Cretaceous appeared to be placental mammals; it seemed such mammals more likely evolved some 65 million years ago, which would support the long held "explosive model'' theory that a dino die-off made way for them to spring up.

"The dinosaurs die out and all these niches open up. Then placental mammals go into these niches and…. Wham!" Wible says. "They just explode into these new niches opened up by dinosaurs."
So now we are at 70 million years ago with a shrew-like ancestor for mammals, and an explosion of speciation after the dinosaur extinctions.

Here's another tidbit from current evidence, from Insectivore-like mammals, Tiny teeth and their enigmatic owners[/i]

Quote
It is widely known that placental mammals originated in the Mesozoic as small, unspecialized forms that can best be compared to the insectivores of the modern mammal fauna. Such shrew-like mammals are often imagined as the sole survivors of the events that wiped away the dinosaurs, ...

Traditionally, insectivores have been classified as a single order of placental mammals, the Insectivora, which includes familiar animals such as shrews, moles and hedgehogs as well as exotic forms like the golden moles of Africa and the tenrecs of Madagascar. As the name implies, these animals feed typically on small invertebrates such as insects or worms, but in fact most insectivores eat almost anything organic that can be stuffed into their mouths and chewed (5).

The oldest and most primitive shrew-relatives, or soricomorphs (from the shrew genus Sorex), are the Nyctitheriidae (30). The family appears first in North America with Leptacodon, shrew-sized animals of about 7 to 14g (1) that occur from the Early Paleocene to the Early Eocene, and the last known members of the family are Oligocene in age (20, 32).

The Nyctitheriidae have also been proposed as relatives of another group of modern mammals, the bats of the order Chiroptera. Full-fledged bats appear all of a sudden in the fossil record in the Early Eocene, and they already show significant diversity by that time (38). This implies either an incredibly rapid evolution or, more probably, an origin of the order well in the Paleocene. Fossil skeletons of early bats should be easy to recognize by at least the beginning development of a flight apparatus, but unfortunately no such skeletons (which would only be preserved under exceptional circumstances) are known from the Paleocene. However, there are only small differences between the teeth of bats and those of certain Paleocene insectivores, including members of the Nyctitheriidae and an unnamed genus known from Germany and Rumania (38, 39, 40). Some of these animals may turn out to be ancient bats when they become better known, especially when skeletons are found. This would not be surprising from the point of view of molecular studies which place the orders Chiroptera and Lipotyphla close to each other on the family tree of mammals (7, 8).
And there you have noted that we have very similar teeth between an ancient shrew-like mammal and modern bats, a shared trait.

Still looks like the [i]evidence says "shrew-like" and post 65 million years, and thus not a figment of imagination eh?

And meanwhile, we have added yet another early mammal fossil to the long of known intermediate fossils along the transitional lineage from reptiles to modern day mammals.

Enjoy.