Hi CTD

= Imagination.
Sure they have to fill in the colour with their imagination. They know what shape it’s skeleton was, the size and shape of it’s eye’s and teeth (if any) how big the muscles were and where they attached, the size and location of the ligaments which gives a full shape with very little room for error but the skin doesn’t fossilize generally and when it does it’s colour will be lost so we do have to use imagination to fill in it’s colour.

Are you suggesting National Geographic lacks the resources to provide a pic of the skeleton?
I have no idea? Didn’t they include one? The article I read online had several good pictures of the skeleton, I can’t answer for what National Geographic did or didn’t and why.

Whining about the fact that a book contains a trifling amount of mistakes is pretty lame.
Trifling? You’ll have to show me where it had anything but mistakes? I looked at the online one and couldn’t find any of it that was factual though I’m sure there was some in there somewhere.

Oh really? Say whatever you like to justify your faith. RAZD put forth a requirement and it's been met. He surely doesn't need any help from you to weasel out.
Fact is bats use the same bones for their wings as we use for our hands and horses use for their front feet. Homology is a very long established science.

When things are similar, and they suit the evostory, they're called "homologous". When they don't suit the story, they're called "convergent evolution". When this happens I call it intellectual dishonesty.
No Homology is far more rigorous than that. Look it up, it’s really worth understanding the science you wish to mock before you do so.

And you waste your time. RAZD already said the DNA-based fantasy must match the fossil-based fantasy. They don't match.
But that is, yet again, where you are wrong. Morphology studies give us a tree of relationships between the various organisms and, guess what, so does DNA and even more importantly they give virtually identical trees. Both methods independently show the same relationships between organisms. I wonder how that could have happened.

In Reason

Russell