Written by Dr. Andy McIntosh DSc, FIMA, C. Math.

Brethren Of Christ Articles - Creation Vs Evolution

Article Index
Flight
Page 2
Page 3
All Pages

One of the most remarkable examples of engineering complexity is flight. The mechanisms behind flight are so intricate, that the serious study of flight in the natural world leads many to conclude that this is entirely consistent with intelligent design, in spite of years spent in designing and testing, aircraft remain less versatile than the common house sparrow! Is it really a matter of science, then, to assume that natural 'machines' are not designed? Surely it is not scientific reasoning per se that causes some scientists to deny the Creative hand behind such masterpieces of aeronautical engineering in the natural world. Rather, it is due to minds being so gripped by the atheistic, humanistic assumptions to begin with, which forces them to reject a Divine hand behind such aerobatic skill and beauty as we see in the skies each day. It is the religious assumption of materialism (viz. that there is only material in the world we see around us), which is the unproven bedrock of evolution theory.

For, controlled, heavier-than-air flight there are four fundamental requirements: (1) A correct wing shape to give a lower air pressure on the upper surface; (2) A large enough wing area to support the weight; (3) Some means of propulsion or gliding, and (4) Extra surfaces, or a means of altering the main surfaces, in order to change direction and speed.

Flight occurs in many branches of the living world: (a) Birds; (b) Insects - Flies, Bees, Wasps, Butterflies, Moths; (c) Mammals - Bats (d) Reptiles - the extinct pterodactyls. Each class of creature is anatomically different with no connection made even by the most ardent evolutionist. A tenuous connection has been attempted between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds - it is seriously proposed that there was a 'pro-avis' dinosaur that flapped scales on its arms to catch insects, and then changed its scales to feathers to gain airborne advantage on its prey. Even if one accepts the fossil record as a guide to change over millions of years, there is no evidence of any `pro-avis' creature ever existing in the fossil record. For the evolutionist, there is the scenario of flight evolving at least 3 times independently! The wings of the 3 main current groups of flying creatures today are substantially different - birds' wings are made of feathers, insect wings of scales and bat wings use skin spread out over a skeleton. So the evolutionist is faced with not just one impossible hurdle - that some reptiles grew feathers and began to fly - but two further hurdles. These are that flight evolved again when some rodents (mice?, shrews?) developed a skin like surface over their front legs to become bats, and then, quite separately, some insects grew very thin scales to become flies, bees and butterflies!

Birds

A bird's wings are made of feathers. A feather is a marvel of lightweight engineering. Though light, it is very wind resistant. This is because there is a clever system of barbs and barbules. Each barb of a feather is visible with the naked eye and comes off the main stem. What is not generally realised is that on either side of the barb are further tiny barbules that can only be seen under a microscope. These are of different type depending on whether they are coming from one side of the barb or the other. On one side of the barb ridged barbules will emerge, whilst on the other side, the barbules will have hooks on. Thus the hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighbouring barb. The hooks and ridges act like 'Velcro', but go one stage further, since the ridges allow a sliding joint and there is thus an ingenious mechanism for keeping the surface flexible and yet intact. The next time you see a flight feather on the ground, remember it is a marvel of lightweight, flexible and aerodynamic engineering. Reptile scales have no hint of such complicated machinery. Stahl ('Vertebrate History. Problems in Evolution,' McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974, p. 349) has freely admitted, "No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation."

There is no genetic information within reptile scales to allow such a unique device as the sliding joint of a feather to be made. The tortuous route suggested by some of small 'advantaged mutations' to scales leads to clumsy structures, which, are in fact a disadvantage to the creature. Not until all the hook and ridge structure is in place, is there any advantage, even as a vane for catching insects! Unless one invokes some 'thinking ahead' planning, there is no way that chance mutations could produce the 'idea' of the cross-linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice. Even if the chance mutation of a ridge/hook occurs in two of the barbules, there is no mechanism for translating this 'advantage' to the rest of the structure. This is a classic case of irreducible complexity, which is not consistent with slow evolutionary changes, but quite consistent with the notion of purposeful design.

But that is not all. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed unless there was also oil to lubricate the sliding joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realise that once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together. The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of this oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers, which for water birds also gives waterproofing (thus water slides off a duck's back). Without the oil the feathers are useless, so even if a supposed land dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be no use after a few hours!