Which doesn't prove your point in the slightest. It is not a serious discussion, but intended to be fun. If you want to add to the discussion, please feel free.

This is your opinion, one we know is questionable. Do you see the word "help" in that post? Do you see an appeal for assistance?

The funny part is that what is going on is having a little fun, an intellectual exercise, hypothesizing on the behavioral path leading between known ancestor and known descendant. You raised the question of imagining the link, and I thought it might be a fun thing to do. That does not make it a scientific process or even necessary to the current knowledge on bat evolution. It is just hypothesizing on the part of evolution that does not fossilize, the behaviors of organisms, but that is the link between known fossils with shared traits.

No, I am not asking for "help" to imagine the evolution of the bat, I can imagine quite well, however I can also distinguish the difference between imagination and fact. Apparently you still have some trouble with that.

The facts are the fossils, and the fossils show evolutionary links by the shared traits: these are not imaginary.

Hypothesizing intermediates between known fossils has lead to some new fossil finds, like Tiktaalik, but the hypothesis can easily be invalidated by the next find.

Now there YOU go imagining things, YOU are imagining the order in which these elements evolve: pretty silly to do without any evidence, of course, so you must just be doing it for fun.

Try looking at the aye-aye if you think this is funny.

Nothing has stopped you yet from mocking what you don't understand.

So why then do YOU imagine that the hand rotated at that time?

Which probably means that what YOU imagined didn't happen. Of course you could post your hypothesis on that forum and see how well it is received, after all you, your ability to do simple math, your frequent misrepresentation of facts and your failure to substantiate your position are well known there.

Of course your own complete failure of imagination on how the wing of a bat evolves, does not mean that the bat did not evolve from a tree climbing shrew-like insectivore that happens by chance to have the same kind of teeth as bats.

Of course, and the real fun would be when they find the next intermediate fossil and you can check your hypothesis against the facts.

And yet all you have on this post is more mockery.

And you STILL have not addressed the fact that the bat fossil is STILL an intermediate form between the ancestral shrew-like organism with homologous teeth.

And still you avoid the issue of actual fossils of actual intermediate forms between ancestral forms and descendant forms. I don't expect you to be impressed, I expect you to show people why you think they are not intermediate. You were the one who asserted there were only a handful or two of transitional fossils, and we are way beyond that number. Either you demonstrate why they are not intermediate forms, or you have rather remarkable hands, or your assertion is demonstrated false.

Yet it has been demonstrated.

Now that is just another one of your misrepresentations, CTD. Nobody requires you to do anything, you are free to remain ignorant of the way evolution works and the way evolutionary science is actually done by evolutionary biologists.

Enjoy.