What Do Bats And Whales Have In Common?

Both mammals have a sophisticated sensing mechanism but how could that be in the evolutionary framework when both these animals grew up in completely different environments with different lineages and are vastly different in size. At the University at Southern Denmark, they write…

“Sperm whales weigh up to 50 tons, and the smallest bat barely reaches a gram. Nevertheless, the two species share the same success story: They both have developed the ability to use echolocation – a biological sonar – for hunting. Now Danish researchers show that the biosonar of toothed whales and bats share surprisingly many similaritieseven though they live in very different environments and vary extremely in size.”

“Researchers from the two Danish universities, Aarhus University and University of Southern Denmark, have now studied the acoustic properties of the technique behind echolocation in bats and whales in the wild. Previous studies of their abilities to locate and catch prey have primarily been based on laboratory tests, and the studies in the wild now provide a much more realistic picture of how the animals use echolocation.” 

What happens when evolution gets falsified in this manner, you invoke “convergent evolution” even though as it says in current biology…“the exact evolutionary relationship of bats to their closest mammalian relatives is poorly understood due to their unique morphological features associated with flight, a lack of intermediate forms, and a poor fossil record.” 

What do they mean by “poor fossil record”? Isn’t the fossil record assumed to be the best evidence for evolution? After all when the oldest bat fossils were found back in 2008, the likes of phys.org, BBC, and National Geographic made claims such as, “the fossils represent a breakthrough in the understanding of bat evolution!” and labeled as ” a missing link that “demonstrates that the animals evolved the ability to fly before they could echolocate.”

There has been a long debate among evolutionists on how a bat could evolve rather than if it really did evolved such as the development of the sonar system bats use to navigate and hunt their prey. Did the echolocation come first or did flight in the evolutionary story. Most evolutionists believe that echolocation came first then flight which these new discoveries of bat fossils falsifies that idea.

But these old fossils considered to be the current oldest discovered so far resembles modern bats that lack echolocation so what features made it primitive? Primitive in my book would be a lacking an advance design compared to a modern one. So the appearance lacks a primitive design which leads them to only one conclusion to build a whole theory around using circular reasoning and that is where the fossil was placed in the strata.

There is also confirmation about creationism in this discovery. This supposed oldest primitive bat is still what? Answer:100 percent bat which even resembles a modern one! There are no transitions of bats with all their specialized adaptations in the fossil record and nothing related to the bat has ever been found in the fossil record and yet evolutionists have this story about bats evolving into other animals. The second quote from danish researchers is operational science, the study on how something works which is clearly real science not a made up story about how it evolved!


9 thoughts on “What Do Bats And Whales Have In Common?

  1. Michael doesn’t understand something he reads, so that means to him that evolution is falsified.

    Oh dear.

  2. Convergent evolution is not a type of evolution. Michael can’t seem to get this through hid head. Despite all explanations, he continues to believe that biologists consider two species having the same convergence to be evolutionarily closely related. In fact, “convergent evolution” means that the convergent species are NOT closely related, by definition..

    Here’s a somewhat simplistic analogy. Brands of automobile evolve. The early Volkswagen species of Beetle, Kubelwagen, and Thing evolved to New Beetle, Passat,, Tiguan, Golf, Polo, Seat, and other species. Meanwhile, Pontiac (now a fossil brand) evolved the Grand Am, Bonneville, Catalina, Fiero, Firebird, Vibe, Aztec, and others. The VW models are all related by evolution within General Motors, and the VW models evolved according to the VW GmbH corporate image.

    Both companies .made models called “sport-utility vehicles,”. which look like each other: tall, square back, large tires, etc.. The reason they have a similar appearance is that they all evolved—independently—by ADAPTIVE SELECTION to fill an environmental niche populated by soccer moms and would-be macho off-roaders. That is, sport-utility vehicles are not all evolutionarily related to each other. Rather, they have separately evolved common features which increase their fitness in a particular environment..

    Michael, we are given to understand, is enthralled by his notion of fitness, and thinks that high fitness for an environment is desirable. Just so, the VW Tiguan and the Pontiac Aztec SUVs have no common evolutionary history. Rather, they both have similar overall shapes because VW and Pontiac competed in the same market, where SUVs have a high fitness.

    Returning to biology, both humans and houseflies have image-forming eyes. Not because we evolved from squid, but because this feature raises the fitness level of both. They both live in environments where visual location of prey leads to reproductive success. It is important to note that, although the overall function of both eye types is the same, they are constructed quite differently from each other, because they are only remotely relisted by common ancestry.. Aha, Michael may exclaim: this is evidence for common design! But, if this were true, then why do humans and houseflies have such different components? A competent designer would determine whether compound eyes are more fit than camera-lens eyes, and would equip both species with the same type. Obviously, this has not occurred. Therefore, the designer must be incompetent or uncaring. Evolution, on the other hand, works within its past history, constructing desirable features from the components available to each species.

    Bats and whales are much more closely related to each other by vertebrate evolution. Before either species had evolved echolocation, their common ancestor had evolved the apparatus necessary to implement it: a sound-producing larynx and spatially separated sound detectors.[1] Much later, both bats and whales found themselves in niches where prey location by sound contributed to reproductive fitness, because visual location was difficult in those settings. So both have evolved echolocation—independently of each other.[2] In other words, this convergent evolution is not as matter of common descent, but of selective evolutionary pressure by their environment to increase fitness[3].

    Now, I don’t believe for a New-York minute that Michael’s irrational faith will be swayed by any of this. But I would hope to influence the casual passer-by who is not legally blind from a primitive theological doctrine that was debated and discarded by Christian theologians 1500 years ago.[4]


    [1] Humans also have the ability to locate objects by sound as well. It is merely not as honed as in in bats and whales., Many teleost fish have separated lateral-line sensors which can detect the direction of sounds. That, is directional location of sounds is not an uncommon trait in the animal kingdom.

    [2] Michael need not marvel that these two species have vastly different sizes. They both had already evolved the structural components for this capability. Size of course does matter—the frequencies employed by bats are orders of magnitude higher than those of whales, because the vocal apparatus differs.

    [3] The sparse fossil record of early bats is not at all surprising. It was found in a study a couple of years ago that mice could be induced to develop the webbed skin needed for flight by mutating only a single gene. And that this mutation could impart enough web-skin for flight in a mouse population within only a few generations. (Hint to Michael: Bat generation times are 20 to 30 years. Try finding a fossil from millions of years ago that lies within a span of two centuries. Very hard to do—like hitting a 1cm target from a kilometer away..)

    [4] Cf., e.g., Augustine, Origen, and Eusebius.


  3. But these old fossils considered to be the current oldest discovered so far resembles modern bats that lack echolocation so what features made it primitive? Primitive in my book would be a lacking an advance [sic] design compared to a modern one. So the appearance lacks a primitive design which leads them to only one conclusion to build a whole theory around using circular reasoning and that is where the fossil was placed in the strata.

    If the above mishmash of meaningless drivel is typical of what is in “his book.” then Michael stands in sore need of a ghost author.

    I would suspect form other posts, however, that most of the pages in Michael’s book are blank.

  4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .What Do Bats And Whales Have In Common?

    And, even more importantly, what is the difference between an Israeli and an Israelite?

  5. And, even more importantly, what is the difference between an Israeli and an Israelite?

    Since no one will step up to this one, the answer is “60calories.”

  6. ID acolytes claim that ID and biblical creationism represent convergent evolution, that ID and creationism have evolved separately.

    This is not true. The KItzmiller trial in 2005 demonstrated that intelligent design is directly descended from creationism, when a transitional fossil was unearthed from a draft of the book Of Pandas and People.

  7. Michael sneers at the idea that the theory of evolution changed over time.

    Of course it does. Evolution evolves. Creationism does not evolve—it was created in six days and has not changed appreciably since then.

  8. “The Man Who Bottled Evolution” (Science342:790-93, 15 Nov 2013) recounts Richard Lenski’s 25-year experiment with bacterial evolution. Although Lenski once decided to terminate it, the experiment will continue for the foreseeable future. Since to 2008 origin of a major functional change in the E. coli, several other discoveries have come to light, including varying rates of mutation and adaptation.

    This news article also describes the donnybrook of Andrew Schlafly’s 2008 attempt to controvert Lenski’s findings in Conservapedia. Creationists still bang their heads against this wall, while biologists laugh…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s