Home » Intelligent Design » Bats fly uniquely.

Bats fly uniquely.

In case any one accidentally comes to the (?obvious) conclusion that the finding of yet more evidently brilliant design in biology may support ID, everyone must include the customary clear homage to the creator of all life, NDE.

Bat in flight

Science Daily “Kenneth Breuer and Sharon Swartz are determined to understand the detailed aerodynamics of bat flight – and ultimately the evolutionary path that created it.”

“The assumption has always been that bats evolved from some sort of flying squirrel-type animals,” says Swartz an associate professor in ecology and evolutionary biology at Brown University. “Gliding has evolved in mammals seven times…. Now it doesn’t look like bats have any relationship to these gliding things.”

“Interestingly both Breuer and Schwartz remark that it took them months to find a common language and set of expectations.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070118161402.htm

Paper abstract is at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-3190/1/4/S02

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

14 Responses to Bats fly uniquely.

  1. Now it doesn’t look like bats have any relationship to these gliding things.”

    This is the kind of thing Walter ReMine addresses in his book The Biotic Message: biological forms are designed precisely to resist any naturalistic explination.

  2. “In case any one accidentally comes to the (?obvious) conclusion that the finding of yet more evidently brilliant design in biology may support ID, everyone must include the customary clear homage to the creator of all life, NDE.”

    Using Richard Dawkins’ line of reasoning in The God Delusion, the discovery of greater sophistication and complexity in nature makes NDE MORE likely, and intelligent agency LESS likely. That’s because he thinks that the designer must be more complex than the thing designed, and that THAT designer must in turn be designed by something still more complex, and so on ad infinitum.

    So Dawkins disciples will view discoveries of greater complexity as more confirmation of the amazing powers of random mutation (or “natural selection” for those who agree with Dawkins that there’s nothing random about NDE)!

  3. “The assumption has always been that bats evolved from some sort of flying squirrel-type animals,” says Swartz…”…Now it doesn’t look like bats have any relationship to these gliding things.”

    Once again Darwinists’ assumptions are contradicted by evidence.

  4. All this shows is you haven’t read the paper?

  5. Although I did not see any direct conclusions to alternate explanations of the “gliding squirrel turned aerial acrobat” scenario, we can certainly, as any NDE advocate worth his or her salt, come up with some creative solutions. Recall that some bats dine on scrumptious insects, others on fruit, and still others on blood of sleeping cattle, etc.

    Then, from the article we find a clue: “The results suggest the possibility that a novel lift-generating mechanism may be at work in bats and point to the highly maneuverable mammals as a model for tiny flying machines.”

    So, we have a mouse type mammal that enjoys low-lying fruit, e.g. berries. Over time, those that can jump to fruit located higher on the bush or vine certainly survive and thrive. Well, some of these pathfinders of nature began grabbing insects on the way up to the fruit. You get the idea: wings sprouted, joints adapted, echolocation leaped into existence, and, well, the rest is natural history!!!

    All very plausible, is it not? And the best part, it is all sorts of fun thinking up these fast-flying tales of nature’s acrobatics. And it even sells in your neighborhood University, public school, museum, and bookstore. You can pull in a paycheck with all this!!!

    Ain’t this a great world????

  6. kengee

    The paper abstract is at http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-3190/1/4/S02

  7. Shucks, this is too bad. I so enjoyed Dawkin’s story of the squirrels falling to their deaths. It made me giggle.

  8. Please note this work is supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Thus Breur the Engineer is studying real science data for future improvements to flight maneuvers.

    The “evolution” part of this is merely a side show as usual.

    One quote is hilarious, ““The assumption has always been that bats evolved from some sort of flying squirrel-type animals,” says Swartz. “Gliding has evolved in mammals seven times. That tells us that it’s really easy for an animal with skin to evolve into a glider, but going from a square gliding wing to a long, skinny flapping wing has not happened seven times. It might have happened once. And now it doesn’t look like bats have any relationship to these gliding things.”

    This is funny. First of all they admit that the “assumption” has always been…, but then they say, it was “easy” but now they discover with an “engineer” it is really not the same at all, so are we back to “hard” now?

    I really this line, ““Engineers like to control things and make many, many measurements,” says Swartz, the biologist.”

    Gee, go figure, accurate data capture and analysis.

    That should give us a clue why for the last 150 years of “assumptions” NDE has missed the boat.

    As engineers get more involved in the nano world of life, a revolution will take place.

    Glad to see them “cooperating” but history of evolution here takes a balcony seat while engineering is on stage.

  9. Patrick, Ha! That gave me a good chuckle….

  10. The fact that they recruit engineers to study biological forms is a strong evidence that Darwinian totalists are aware of the design therein. Why call upon people who understand the principles of design and engineering in order to understand biology? Could it be that biological forms are….*drum roll*… the result of design?

  11. What’s the deal with all these italics? They’re difficult to read.

  12. When I say “design therein” I don’t mean it in the way Darwinian clerics mean (“illusion of design”) but as real design.

  13. Mike1962,

    Genetic Drift of a Beneficial mutation? Italics are not turned off in post. And turning them off in comments does not work either. You could say the change has been fixed into the population. And because our comments keep appearing, the italics mutation is seen as beneficial.

  14. “Using Richard Dawkins’ line of reasoning in The God Delusion, the discovery of greater sophistication and complexity in nature makes NDE MORE likely, and intelligent agency LESS likely.”

    Just another example of RD’s ignorance concerning the very thing he fights against. Has this guy read *any* Christian philosophy? I’d be embarrassed to say the things he does. I’m embarrassed when I hear him say it. I remember his response to Stephen Colbert “Well then who ‘did’ God?” I was just shocked that someone who’s writing books about religion/atheism didn’t realize his question was shamefully ridiculous. It’s almost as though he feels he’s the first guy to ever think of this stuff.

Leave a Reply