Even measuring bat testes does not change the fact that Darwin is dead

Here it is Jan 4 already. I should be working on my 2005 taxes, but maybe I'm just killing time until the USC-Texas squareoff this afternoon at the Rose Bowl. I just wish I had a wall-sized poster of Reggie Bush hurdling over the air-catching Arizona State defender on his way to the goal line a few weeks ago. That should be sports poster of the decade. Not that I am a Trojan fan - I'm not. I confess to being one among a group that snitched a "Tommy Trojan" sword from the USC campus statue a few decades ago. The very snazzy looking sword turned out to be a wooden replica. I guess Tommy Trojan sword snitching got too popular in that era - forcing even august USC to eschew putting out real metal. But it may be a hint for today's game. If the USC defense does not have true mettle, Texas may not need to bring enough heat to melt steel, but just enough to burn the Trojans real good.

On to the rant of the day. It's about a guy who studies the size of private parts on bats. I must admit feeling a bit weird talking about this, but maybe not as weird as our researcher feels while on task. Actually, in the great tradition of American higher education, it is likely the graduate assistant who gets the measuring job.

Soooo ... I just read today (article by Sarah Moses of Newhouse News Service) that Syracuse University biology professor Scott Pitnick looked at 334 species of bats and found that, in males, the bigger the testes, the smaller the brains (published recently in Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Science). Furthermore, it seems that the well-hung fellas seem to show up in the species with promiscuous rather than faithful females. "The reason for the bat findings: evolutionarily speaking, big testes win when female mates are promiscuous because larger testes allow male bats to fertilize more females," Moses quotes Pitnick as saying.

So what to make of this? It seems like the word "evolution" is dragged out and paraded around any time something makes a population shift. But it is the old bait-and-switch trick. The evolutionist-illusionist blithely displays a genetic drift within a population (such as sizes of bat brains/testes, or colors of moth markings in industrial England), while NOT SHOWING ANY NEW INFORMATION OR NEW STRUCTURES, OR NEW FUNCTIONS PRODUCED, and then makes the switch to claim this as evidence of the kind of evolution that produces people from particles. The process of selection within a population is equated to a process that creates entirely new structures and functions, as Darwin would suggest. They are simply not the same, and to suggest that they are lacks integrity. Discerning folks will figure it out, but it seems there is no hope for the Darwinist ideologues.

Now for observations instead of ruminations.

(1) Bat fossils supposedly millions of years old have been found virtually identical to modern-day living counterparts. See for example the G. L. Jepsen photo on the cover page of Science, December 9, 1966.

Hey - it's not like this is new stuff.

(2) And from Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, p. 463, "Like the pterosaurs, the flight structure of bats was already highly evolved when they first appeared in the fossil record. The oldest skeleton of a bat, Icaronycteris, from the early Eocene, appears almost indistinguishable from living bats."

Face it folks. A Bible creation model predicts (1) abrupt appearance and (2) stasis (plus gradual decay following the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3). A Darwinian evolutionary model predicts (1) gradual appearance, and (2) continual change. The Darwinian origins model clearly flunks the bat test. As Darwin continues to strike out time after time after time after time, maybe it is time for him to get a bigger bat. But since Darwin is dead, let's watch with a jaundiced eye those who are swinging the bat for him.