A new fossil bat, unearthed in the U.S. state of Wyoming in 2003 and estimated to be 52 million years old, is being used as a tool for evolutionist propaganda. The well-preserved fossil, known as Onychonycteris finneyi, was announced in the 14 February 2008 issue of Nature magazine by a team of researchers from the American Museum of Natural History, the Royal Museum in Ontario, Canada and the Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany. It says that the interesting thing about the fossil is that, unlike present-day bats, its ear morphology suggests that it had no echolocation abilities and had claws on all digits. Present-day bats, on the other hand, have claws on only two digits of each hand. In addition, the hind legs of Onychonycteris finneyi are relatively much longer than its forearms than is the case with present-day bats. Its sternum indicates that it was able to fly under its own power. Its teeth are similar to those of bats alive today and show that it mainly fed on insects.
In terms of features in and around its ears, Onychonycteris finneyi lacked an echolocation, or sonar system used by bats to perceive their surroundings and for hunting, and evolutionists have used this as a starting point for speculating in favor of their theory. Evolutionists portray this fossil, in fact an indication of the great variety of bats with their perfect physical structures, as a more primitive form of present-day bats. The media organs making reports on the subject have claimed that the fossil “solves evolution poser” and “is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors.”
Bats refute the idea of the gradual development of echolocation
The complex echolocation system possessed by bats is their most interesting characteristic. Thanks to this system, bats are able to fly and perform the most amazing acrobatic maneuvers in the pitch dark, without being able to see anything at all. They are capable of locating and catching a caterpillar in a lightless chamber.
But no such difficulty in fact arises. The bat continues to locate moving objects in a flawless manner. That is because the bat adjusts the frequency of sound waves it emits towards moving objects, just as if it were aware of the Doppler effect. For example, it emits sound waves of the highest pitch towards a fly moving away from it so that the echo should not be of too low a frequency for it to hear.
It is impossible to overlook how this whole system deals a lethal blow to the theory of evolution’s idea of “gradual evolution through random mutations.” The sonar system in bats is an exceedingly complex structure and can never be explained in terms of random mutations. All its details and components have to be present and fully functioning in order for the system to function. The bat has to have the means of emitting high-frequency sounds, organs to perceive and analyze them and a system capable of adjusting sound frequencies according to variations of movement in order to possess a functional sonar system. These things cannot, of course, be explained in terms of chance, and they show that the bat was created in a perfect state.
The fossil record of bats refutes evolution
The fossil record shows that bats appeared on Earth suddenly and together with all the complex structures they possess today. In their book Bats: A Natural History, the evolutionist paleontologists John E. Hill and James D. Smith effectively admit this reality:
Darwinist claims regarding Onychonycteris finneyi are based on facile word games
Nearly all the reports about this latest fossil discovery used the term “bat evolution” in their headlines, thus giving the impression that scientific evidence verifying that concept had been discovered and revealed in the scientific literature. The fact is, however, as shown above, the scientific records in no way confirm the idea of bat evolution, but rather refute it. The deception employed by evolutionists runs along these lines:
Although the theory of evolution maintains that one life form evolved from another, evolutionists are unable to point to any transitions between different living things, and prefer to use the diversity of life in order to pull the wool over people’s eyes. For example, according to the theory of evolution, the bat should have evolved from land-dwelling quadrupedal (four-legged) mammals. In their unlikely tales evolutionists cast animals capable of leaping from branch to branch, like the flying squirrel, in that role. But this is no more than a fairy tale. Evolutionists have not the slightest piece of evidence to indicate the fossil stages in any supposed transition from a squirrel or any other terrestrial mammal to the bat, nor to suggest how living things undergoing that process could possibly have survived. (In fact, as revealed above, oldest known bat forms are fully formed and have no physical features indicating any transition from any other life form.)
Bat species are known to represent approximately one fourth of all the mammal species on Earth. They are distinguished from other mammals by their superior echolocation systems, the claws that enable them to cling to trees and cave roofs, their wings consisting of a light, thin membrane allowing them such enormous aerobatic maneuverability, and the unique features of their teeth and diets. Furthermore, mammals include a very wide range of forms, such as whales, rats, lions and bats, and there are no intermediate forms between the members of such classes completely different in morphological terms. Evolutionists, who maintain that lions, horses, bats, dogs and whales are all descended from the same common ancestor, are unable to point to a single one of the vast number of transitional forms that must, in their eyes, once have lived. All that evolutionists can do is to distort the biodiversity in bats, which indicates their flawless creation, on behalf of their theory, which is why they label that diversity as “evolution.”