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!

New Darwinian Evolution Information: Not Promising!

In the Bible it says, animals reproduce after their own kind, however in evolution it’s a story of dead chemicals which formed then turning into life and those living creations branched out into many different animals suited for particular environments.

“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

“And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” -Genesis 1:20-25.

A fossil known as ‘Miacis’ uintensis’ was unpacked from a long shelf life that was over a hundred years. The reason why it was stored was so that future evolutionary information would be able have explanatory power in the Darwinian tree of life. However, it did have four other explanations prior to this latest one. Here is what they found with today’s knowledge…

“An analysis of 99 traits among 29 fossils and 15 living taxa resulted in a new evolutionary tree that shows that ‘M.’ uintensis is distantly related to the type specimens from the Miacis genus, suggesting that an extensive revision of the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships among early carnivore fossils may be needed.

But more significantly, the structure of the evolutionary tree suggests that adaptations to terrestrial or semi-terrestrial locomotion were more common than previously suspected in early fossil carnivores, preceding the split between the two major groups of living Carnivora, the Caniformia (a group that includes dogs, weasels, bears, seals and their relatives) and Feliformia (cats, hyenas, mongooses and civets). “

It appears they were disappointed with the results. What they expected from a primitive carnivore didn’t pan out, it was actually a species that had plenty of diversity of lifestyles which has been observed in modern carnivores. Nothing has evolved here only the imagination of evolutionists.

Another fossil (Mammalodon colliveri) which has been also shelved for a pretty long time as well since 1939 was studied again. This animal was touted as a great new discovery to explain mysteries of whale evolution. Whales are thought to have evolved from a dog-like land animal.

According to Dr. Fitzgerald as he studied the fossil, “This indicates early and varied experimentation in the evolution of baleen whales.” Fitzgerald when on to say, he believed “The Origin of Species” was correct and that “some of the earliest baleen whales may have been suction feeders.” Not so fast Dr. Fitzgerald, after closer reading we find, Mammalodon colliveri was already considered a primitive toothed baleen whale, one of the group of whales that contains the blue whale.

Mammalodon is a dwarf, by claiming it evolved from a larger whale would not indicate evolution but rather regression within it’s own kind.