Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Striking Out On Bat Evolution

Proponents of bacteria-to-bat evolution have a high percentage for assertions, conflation, and conjectures. When it comes to actually providing evidence for their claims, their batting average that's lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. The evolution of the bat is a noteworthy failure as far as evidence is concerned. Indeed, the evidence shows that bats (along with other critters, plants, humans, and so forth) were all created, not products of evolution.

Evolutionists cannot determine how bats evolved. That's because they did not evolve, they were created — as abundant evidence indicates.
Flying fox (fruit bat) image credit: Morguefile / kconnors
The idea is that bats supposedly evolved from some kind of rodent. Maybe it's because bats look kinda sorta like rodents, except the limbs are all wrong. Also, there's no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Imagine that, a bat is just a bat. There are many specialized systems in place for the bat's flying ability, echolocation, variety, and more. No, these helpful creatures were designed by their Creator, and that's why there's no sign of evolution.
Of the 1,240 living mammal species, almost 25 percent are the amazingly designed bats. They compose the second-largest order of mammals, next to rodents,2 and are ecologically and economically important. Bats effectively control insect pests and are essential to the pollination of some flowers. In fact, a number of tropical plants depend entirely on bats for seed dispersal. Mammologists place these nocturnal creatures into two suborders—the Microchiroptera (echolocating, insect-eating bats) and Megachiroptera (fruit-eating bats). According to evolution, both groups evolved from an unknown flying common ancestor.

Bat Origins Evolutionists maintain that a rodent of some sort evolved into a bat. Yet, over 1,000 fossil bats have been unearthed and scientists have not classified a single one as an intermediate between rodents and bats. They’re all bats, as predicted by the creation model.

If there was ever such a great transformation, evolutionarily speaking, it would be a remarkable transition from an unknown rodent to a swift-flying bat. How do evolutionists account for this? Strangely, a 2007 book edited by two evolutionists titled Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution does not explain the process. Neither does Great Transformations in Vertebrate Evolution, published several years later. Why the silence on bat origins?
Now I'm done pitching this very interesting article. To read the rest, click on "The Evidence Rats Out Bat Evolution".

Labels