Missing links from non-flying mammals to bats.
Scientists agree there is no evidence of a predecessor to contemporary bats. Jeff Hetch writes, “The origins of bats have been a puzzle. Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats,” (Hetch 1998: 14, cited in Chapman 2009). Hetch is saying the wings on fossil bats are not prototypes for later bats, but the same form. The absence of intermediate forms is made explicit by the Natural History Museum website: “The earliest fossil insect eating bat...is very similar to the species of bats that exist today...Unfortunately, no ‘missing links’ have yet been found to show clearly the bats’ evolutionary route,” (Natural History Museum 2009,cited in Chapman 2009). The theory of an evolutionary line between mammals and bats remains speculative.
Donald Prothero argues that creationists are “misleading” by emphasising the lack of transitional forms for bats, and also by claiming fossil bats are similar to modern bats. Firstly, Prothero points out that, “bats have very delicate skeletons...so they are very rarely fossilised,” (Prothero 2007: 288), so there are not many bat fossils, hence no transitional forms. “The creationist emphasis on these one or two extraordinary specimens,” Prothero argues, “gives the false impression that we should be finding these lucky accidents all the time,” (Prothero 2007: 288). The lack of intermediate forms is not due to the lack of evolution, but to the non-discovery of evidence despite “over a century of looking,” (Prothero 2007: 288). Prothero is arguing that the evidence exists but still needs finding.
Secondly, Prothero believes creationists misinterpret the existing bat fossils. “Creationists are wrong,” he argues, “when they claim that [fossilised] Eocene bats look just like modern bats,” (Prothero 2007: 288). Prothero argues, “the earliest bats did not have they did not yet have the ear structure necessary for the modern system of echolocation,” and furthermore Eocene bats have, “features of the skull, hands, and feet that are not found in any other living bat,” (Prothero 2007: 288). Here Prothero is making the case that bats have evolved different features, but does not consider the prospect that living bats could be different in these respects to fossil bats, but not necessarily descended from them, given the paucity of fossils as Prothero himself concedes. Even if there were micro-evolutionary changes through the ages, this would not account for the vast transitions that would need to occur had macro-evolution occurred, for example the development of echolocation and wings.
The faculty of echolocation possessed by bats requires sophisticated components to be in place and functional simultaneously. Creation Moments comments, “For their echolocation systems to evolve, bats had to develop simultaneously the ability to make high pitched sounds, hear those sounds, and figure out what they mean,” (Creation Moments 2015). The production of the high pitched sound works in conjunction with the detection of the echo and the decoding of the echo to calculate distance. These three highly complex features are interdependent and are of no use each by itself. Without each component being fully functional and integrated it would serve no purpose since there would be no echolocation (Burgess 2002:144)..
There is no feasible process of development from a mammalian forearm to a bat wing. As Creation Moments point out, there is no way of “evolving typical mammalian forearms into bat wings without crippling the creature in the process,” (Creation Moments 2015). “Even evolutionists admit that the evolution of all these features even once is highly unlikely,” (Creation Moments 2015). Biologist Michael Denton asks, “How could the development of the bats’ wings and capacity for powered flight have come about gradually?” (Denton 1985: 213). Daurie Laurence comments, “there’s no real-world evidence for small, wingless-ancestor rodents, such as shrews, gradually changing into fast flying, upside down hanging, sonar guided bats,” (Laurence 2016: 108). To envisage a shrew turning into a bat through a series of slight successive modifications is to conjure up an array of fantastic monsters with grotesque and useless appendages based not on evidence but on stretched imagination. Another anatomical feature which defies evolution is the bat’s leg.
Medical doctor Geoffrey Simmons argues that the anatomy of the bat’s leg could not have come about through a process of small gradual changes. In Billions of Missing Links Simmons writes, “[bats’] ability to lock onto a rock and hang upside down without falling...is made possible by an automatic locking mechanism in their feet...The moment the bat grabs the rock the clamping mechanism snaps in place. The unprecedented backward-facing knees with forward-facing feet aid the process...Partially-hanging, sometimes-falling intermediates did not exist,” (Simmons 2007: 76). The way the bat clamps on to the rock only works if all the components are incorporated at once. If the locking mechanism had developed over time bats would have fallen to the floor and never reached the stage at which they function.
Creation Moments make the point that there are two types of bat, Microchiroptera and Megachiroptera, which have distinctly different features. For example, Megachiroptera have primate-like eyes: “The brains of the larger bats have very different visual pathways than those in smaller bats. The visual pathways of the larger bats are more like those of primates,” (Creation Moments 2015). No-one suggests Microchiroptera and Megachiroptera have a common ancestor, which in turn implies in evolutionary terms, they would have separate ancestors and separate evolutionary pathways. Hence bats would need to have evolved twice if evolution were true.
These features of bats defy the evolutionary account of gradual change over time and descent from a common ancestor. Instead they imply irreducible complexity and special creation.
Burgess, S. (2002) Hallmarks of Design: Evidence of purposeful design and beauty in nature Leominster,G.B.: Day One
Creation Moments (2015) Evolution of Bats gets Monkeyed Up (Video) [online at] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9c-UXlKQtg [accessed 14.09.2019]
Hetch, J. (1998) ‘Branching Out’ New Scientist 10 October Vol 160: 2155 p14, cited in Chapman, G (2009) ‘Illustrated Guide to Transitional Fossils’ (pamphlet) Yeovil: Creation Resources Trust
Laurence, Daurie (2016) Doubting Darwin: Why Evolution and the Materialist Philosophy Behind it May Not Be True: Why It Matters Great Britain: The Choir Press
Prothero, D.R. (2007) Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters New York: Columbia University Press
Simmons, G. (2007) Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Science Can’t Explain Oregon: Harvest House