Evolutionists: What kind of animal gave birth to the first bat?

All bats are in the order Chiroptera. Since they are in the same order, evolutionarily speaking, they are all related to each other. Actually, you can tell by looking at them that bats are related to each other, and are probably really variations of the first two bats that God created, in my humble opinion.

But, let’s just talk about evolution for a second. Evolution claims the gradual descent of all creatures from the “simple” cell (no cells are simple, they are incredibly complex, but I digress) Many, many variations occurring over time, and then some animal gives birth to the first bat. My question is which animal gave birth to the first bat?

A mammal with wings could not have given birth to the first bat, since all mammals with wings are called bats. A bat could not have given birth to the first bat. That would be impossible, right? Bats are mammals with wings. Bats are the only mammals with wings. No other mammal except bats has wings. So, which animal gave birth to the first bat?

The fossil record shows that bats have always been bats, so there is no help there. Plus, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, anyway. (oh, really, you crazy creationist?)

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist, published "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," in Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977) promoting a new theory of evolution called Punctuated Equilibrium. This new theory was needed, according to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, to explain why there are no transitional fossil forms.

The fossil record, claims evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, does not show the gradual descent from one basic type of animal to another basic type of animal ( invertebrates to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal or birds.)

So, let’s get back to my question to evolutionists: What kind of animal gave birth to the first bat?

Here is my answer:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and bats.

X

 Bookmark and Share

Sign Up For Alerts

19 Comments

Filed under My Faith

19 responses to “Evolutionists: What kind of animal gave birth to the first bat?

  1. Greg

    I suppose that depends on how you define "wings." Bat wings are really nothing like bird wings. They\’re really more like webbed armpits and fingers. I\’d say that morphologically, they\’re much more like whale fins.It also depends on how you define "first bat." There really was no first bat, there were just generations of small rodents with increasingly specialized forearms (as well as a lot of other corresponding traits) that eventually became better and better at using those arms to first glide and then fly. That made them better hunters, which made them survive, and they were better able to pass along their genes. They didn\’t evolve wings because they thought it would be a good idea. Rather they developed random traits that just happened to fit an ecological niche, and the system worked out in their favor.Finally, it depends on your interpretation of "punctuated equilibrium." What that theory actually says is that like all natural systems there are ebb and flow cycles, due in no small part to dramatic changes in environmental conditions. The status quo may go on for thousands of years with a small but resiliant population of specialized organisms eeking out an existence (or possibly carrying a recessive trait dormant in their genetic code) until suddenly there\’s an event that lends itself to those organisms\’ unique talent, and those little opportunists (aren\’t we all?) quickly thrive.What you\’re arguing is that unless a bat comes out looking exactly like a modern bat, born of non-bat parents, then it discredits the theory of evolution. I\’m saying that\’s a gross oversimplifcation and a mischaracterization to say the least.

  2. X-Evolutionist

    Greg said: Once upon a time there were ancestors to bats. Actually I\’m paraphrasing, but the final meaning is the same. You are saying long ago and in a galaxy far away there were bat ancestors, even though there is no evidence. Is that really science, or is it faith in magic based upon your non-belief in a creator, my good buddy…. X

  3. Greg

    That depends on what you consider evidence, doesn\’t it? You do have a knack for reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. I attempted to enter into a point/counterpoint discussion here, X, and all you\’ve succeeded to do is gloss over four well-constructed counterpoints (if I do say so myself) to restate your central tenet. That\’s not a debate, ol\’ pal.

  4. X-Evolutionist

    Greg: Before you posted, you knew you were never going to cause me to change my mind. You saying what might happen, could happen, etc, with all of your excellent four well-constructed counterpoints just does not prove what DID happen.I am perfectly fine with somebody saying I believe on faith. But, science (the theory of evolution in this post) is about proof. You are not allowed to believe on faith. Only me. Neener. X

  5. Horst

    I\’m with you Greg.

  6. X-Evolutionist

    @Everybody: I\’m a middleaged lady with old hands. I can\’t type all day like you whippersnappers, or answer every little bitty point. Let\’s have a Twitter style conversation. 140 words or less. X

  7. X-Evolutionist

    PS: You can type two foot long posts if you want, just please don\’t expect the same from me. Thanks. X

  8. Greg

    Another point, although it doesn\’t really speak to the credibility of evolution or creationism, concerns whether evolution is scientific. When someone comes up with a new wrinkle in a widely held theory (such as Gould\’s notion of punctuated equilibrium), they face harsh criticism and must vigorously defend that position before it is accepted into the annuls of science. It doesn\’t happen overnight. Sometimes, it doesn\’t even happen within their lifetimes. If you\’re right and it\’s important enough to really have an impact, then it will ultimately be vindicated. If it\’s wrong or someone else can offer a more viable explanation, then it will ultimately been cast by the side of the road and forgotten. And that\’s exactly the way it should be. That dynamic prevents every crackpot who has a "good idea" from steering science too far off course. The fact that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the theory of evolution after 150 years of debate speaks volumes about its reputation as good science.A theory is a lot bigger than the person who articulates it. It\’s just information, not spin, regardless of how people try to paint or villify the issue. Skeptics (mainly in the religious community) have attacked Darwin as everything from a racist and an athiest to an womanizer and a drunk. If you want to go back a few hundred years, look at Galileo.And when you disagree with accepted science, you might be called a crackpot and laughed at, but ultimately nobody really cares. When you disagree with religion and faith, you\’re called a heretic or worse and burned at the stake (hey, I\’m generalizing, but you gotta admit that until recently it happened…a lot). That\’s the big difference between science and religion in my book.

  9. Greg

    Sorry, X. You know how I hate Twitter. This boy\’s gotta write.

  10. X-Evolutionist

    Greg said: "And when you disagree with accepted science, you might be called a crackpot and laughed at, but ultimately nobody really cares."You have made a very bad guess at how it is to walk in my shoes. This is not the only place I spread this nonsense. Concurrently, I have a debate on the same topic on the Religion board of IMDB.com. I am hated there, hated really, really bad, so much that people say lies about me to get others to not read my posts. For a good laugh, click here and get an account.http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000108/threads/I aways have posts dedicated to me, such as "X-Evo is a Stepford Wife". My very presence on that board, as a creationst who does not back down, is very threatening to the evolutionists who don\’t really know why they believe what they beleive. It is easier to call me names and tell people lies. X

  11. Greg

    Actually, aside from the pwned references (and the humorous Picard facepalm) I found the discussion around this post on that message board to be pretty intelligent…to a certain point. It did seem to turn ugly there towards the end. It seemed more like they were frustrated that you posted a discussion starter and then bowed out. Hey, I certainly don\’t doubt that there are some kooks there, but an IMDB message board is not exactly the NSF (neither is Windows Live for that matter). I\’m still trying to wrap my head around why a movie website is hosting discussions on evolution vs. creationism. Who\’s the better Spock, pehaps, but what does evolution have to do with movies? I suppose wherever there\’s an audience, there\’s a discussion to fill the void.

  12. X-Evolutionist

    Greg: You went there? Cool. My presence there is a really long, long story. Give me a week, and I\’ll get you up to date. Check out my profile. Each time I show up after they think they have run me out of town, there is a big fiasco on the board as they try to get rid of me. They all challenge me to gunfights like I\’m the Fastest Gun in the West. You should have seen it last week. Fun, fun fun! Actually, I am not posting on that thread now. Each person there, my Fan Club, will tell all the same lies and ask for explanations if I stay too long. It is like playing whack a mole. You tell one person that you don\’t make money on your website, and ten more ask you why you make money on your website. As I have aluded, I am having hand problems, now. I find it hard to control what my fingers do if I type too much. I can stay there for 12 hours straight, and if I take a break to rest my hands, they brag that they ran me back out of town. So, I figure if they are going to say that anyway, I\’m not going to over do it. If you make an account, be sure to tell me your user name. X

  13. X-Evolutionist

    Greg: PS: As far as why that board exists, it started when The Passion of the Christ came out. People came there to debate, and just stayed. We called it the Passion Pit, or just the Pit for short. The admin started a new board and moved our posts there. X

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s