Bat Bones and Intelligent Design

[Bill]

I think it will not be disputed when I say that all mammals have solid bones, and that all birds have hollow bones. This distinction is so clear cut, that if you came across the skeleton of an unknown critter, if it had hollow bones you would immediately know that it was a bird of some sort or other,

Birds need lightweight frames, and hollow bones trade off structural integrity for less weight to carry aloft. Mammals have no need to be so lightweight, and their solid bones give them the ability to withstand knocks and collisions that could easily kill a more fragile bird.

Without prior knowledge, one would expect the division between hollow and solid bones to be that all flying creatures would have hollow bones, and all ground based creatures would have solid bones. But this is not the case.

The mammalian order of Chiroptera (bats) all have solid bones, even though they spend almost all their waking hours airborne. Flightless birds, ostriches. emus and rheas have hollow bones, and suffer greatly from the consequences of having weaker skeletons than mammals.

This was a curious mistake for an Intelligent Designer to have made. Flying creatures need light bones, and flightless ones need solid ones.

Perhaps the ostrich has light bones in order to run quickly? That does not seem to answer the conundrum, for it is easily outpaced by the cheetah, which has solid bones.

Perhaps bats gain some advantage by having solid bones? If so, the presumed advantage is one still not observed by science. They cannot fly as high, or as for long, as their winged counterparts.

However, there is a simple explanation.

It all makes perfect sense if bats evolved from a mammalian line and inherited the traits of mammals, and if ostriches evolved within the class Aves, and now has all the characteristics of birds.

This is not in anyway a conclusive argument to prove the matter one way or the other, but it is another piece of evidence that needs to be weighed when considering the claim of those who propound an Intelligent Designer.

[Adventfred]

Yes bill we know this but theist will just close their ears and say Blah Blah Blah
Also in each of the major groups of life on this planets some species from all the groups had the ability to sustain flight

So theist feathers is not an argument against evolution because dinos flu and mammals flu and reptiles flu
so keep your GOD **** out of the scientific arena

[The An-Jel]

Well it is an Agnostic Forum fred I think it fits pretty well here

[ilj30]

Originally Posted by Bill

The mammalian order of Chiroptera (bats) all have solid bones, even though they spend almost all their waking hours airborne. Flightless birds, ostriches. emus and rheas have hollow bones, and suffer greatly from the consequences of having weaker skeletons than mammals.

This was a curious mistake for an Intelligent Designer to have made. Flying creatures need light bones, and flightless ones need solid ones.

Perhaps the ostrich has light bones in order to run quickly? That does not seem to answer the conundrum, for it is easily outpaced by the cheetah, which has solid bones.

Perhaps bats gain some advantage by having solid bones? If so, the presumed advantage is one still not observed by science. They cannot fly as high, or as for long, as their winged counterparts.

Have any fossils of "bats" in the intermediate stage between land mammal and flying mammal (i.e. with partially developed wings) been found?

Also, and I think you would be the first to admit that scientists don't have all the answers, is it possible that scientists haven't found all of the reasons that bats have solid bones (as well as skin and hair for wings rather than feathers)? Humans do not have all the information. Therefore it is rather presumptuous to assume that bat or ostrich anatomy is an "error" unless you have all of the answers.

[Adventfred]

Originally Posted by The An-Jel

Well it is an Agnostic Forum fred I think it fits pretty well here

Originally Posted by ilj30

Have any fossils of "bats" in the intermediate stage between land mammal and flying mammal (i.e. with partially developed wings) been found?

This statement is wrong because you wont find a bat with partially developed wings, you would find a gradual development of a wing like structure that would eventually aid the bat is flying eg bird evolution

Also, and I think you would be the first to admit that scientists don't have all the answers, is it possible that scientists haven't found all of the reasons that bats have solid bones (as well as skin and hair for wings rather than feathers)? Humans do not have all the information. Therefore it is rather presumptuous to assume that bat or ostrich anatomy is an "error" unless you have all of the answers.

I agreed with you up to there, because scientist never claim to have all the answers, religion makes that claim.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by ilj30

Have any fossils of "bats" in the intermediate stage between land mammal and flying mammal (i.e. with partially developed wings) been found?

The primitive bats of 52 million years ago are quite distinct from the newly discovered fossils dated 35 million years ago. This link deals with the latest discovery in Egypt, and This one covers the older variety. Both are newspaper articles which take some shortcuts over the underlying theoretical matters. Let me know if you want access to the research papers.

Also, and I think you would be the first to admit that scientists don't have all the answers, is it possible that scientists haven't found all of the reasons that bats have solid bones (as well as skin and hair for wings rather than feathers)? Humans do not have all the information. Therefore it is rather presumptuous to assume that bat or ostrich anatomy is an "error" unless you have all of the answers.

Scientists never have all the answers - that is what makes it such a fascinating area of study.

In the case of modern bats, we know that the creatures have nipples, sweat glands, bear their young live, have a diaphragm, and so on. By all measurements available, they are mammals. On the other hand, ostriches lay eggs, have feathers, and their forelimbs have been turned into wings (even though they are not big enough to sustain flight for the bird).

All mammals have solid bones, All birds have hollow bones. It comes as no surprise to the biologist that bats have solid bones and ostriches have hollow bones. (The ancient Hebrews knew naught of modern biology, which is why Leviticus has bats on a list where all the others on it are birds, simply because a bat is a critter that flies - no biggie.)

The bones that these two species actually have, fly in the face of Intelligent Design, but is easily explained by evolution. This simply means (to me) that the Intelligent Design theorists need to explain how their Intelligent Designer came to make such an obvious design error.

[ilj30]

Originally Posted by Bill

The primitive bats of 52 million years ago are quite distinct from the newly discovered fossils dated 35 million years ago. This link deals with the latest discovery in Egypt, and This one covers the older variety. Both are newspaper articles which take some shortcuts over the underlying theoretical matters. Let me know if you want access to the research papers.

So, are there any fossils that show the intermediate stage between land mammals (rats/mice??) and bats?

The bones that these two species actually have, fly in the face of Intelligent Design, but is easily explained by evolution. This simply means (to me) that the Intelligent Design theorists need to explain how their Intelligent Designer came to make such an obvious design error.

How do you know that it is a design error? Simply because they are designed differently, doesn't make there design in error.

[omnissiuntone]

So, are there any fossils that show the intermediate stage between land mammals (rats/mice??) and bats?

Given the unlikelihood of fossils forming, it's amazing that we have the number of fossils that we do.

How do you know that it is a design error? Simply because they are designed differently, doesn't make there design in error.

If we are intelligently designed, why does such a large proportion of the population need glasses? Couldn't God have designed that oft-cited creationist favourite, the eye, so it didn't fail so frequently?

[Bill]

Originally Posted by ilj30

How do you know that it is a design error? Simply because they are designed differently, doesn't make there design in error.

Bats do not fly very well - they are lower and slower than birds because of the extra weight they carry by having solid bones. They are so inept, they have to fly at night, to make it harder for predators to get at them, and in order to fly at night, develop echolocation techniques for hunting. All of this would have been eliminated, at a stroke, if they had been designed with hollow bones, like all other flying creatures.

Ostriches suffer the highest percentage of bone fractures for creatures of their size, leading to many untimely deaths. This would have been avoided if they had the same solid bones as all other non-flying animals.

How bad does a defect have to be before it is universally accepted that it is a defect? So bad that it causes the creatures to actually die out?

Well, I suppose that works - it would explain why there are so many extinct species.

So - if species become extinct because of flaws in their design, does that allow us to ask if an Intelligent Designer was making mistakes when they got designed?

[baddogma]

How bad does a defect have to be before it is universally accepted that it is a defect? So bad that it causes the creatures to actually die out?

One of my favorites is the pig who's tusk grows back in a curl that can eventually pierce it's own skull causing a slow painful death.

Good job there.....creator....