Pitcher Plant Has Radar Reflector Pedal For Bats
Institute For Creation Research
Using acoustic reflectors, the leaf at the top of pitcher plant, the Nepenthes hemsleyana plant guides bats towards it through the jungle in Borneo. It absorbs nitrogen from their waste, while the bats' get a cool place to roost safe from parasites.
Pitcher plants in tropical Borneo, the largest island in Asia, attract a particular species of bat to roost right inside their pitchers. The plants absorb nitrogen from the bat waste that drops to the bottom of the pitchers, and the bats enjoy comfy digs.
They give bats a safe place to roost during daylight hours. How do bats discern these preferred pitcher plants from the surrounding dense jungle foliage, and does the answer to that question help explain how this all might have evolved?
The pitcher plants present concave reflectors that attract their bat buddies. Bats’ high-pitched sound waves bounce off the reflector, so it stands out against the drab-sounding jungle background. The pitcher’s sonic reflector has three other precise design features.
1. The plant’s reflector is situated just above the pitcher’s opening. To the bat, the reflector sounds very loud, but the opening below absorbs sound. The bats easily pick out this distinct contrast.
2. The area containing the reflector is larger than related pitcher plants that attract insects, increasing its sonic signal.
3. It reflects distinct sonic patterns on either side so that the bats can detect it from many angles.
The plant reflector’s size and side-reflecting patterns only work when a certain range of sound frequencies strike it. Of course, these exactly match the vocal range of these local bats, which happen to hold the record for highest frequencies of all bats so far measured.
How did all this interdependent fine-tuning happen?
For a pitcher plant to construct the right size and shape reflector in the right place, it needs just the right building instructions in its DNA. And no number of high-pitched bat calls can somehow reach into plant-seed DNA and write new reflector construction code.
The Current Biology study authors wrote, “In the Neotropics, a few bat-pollinated plants found an efficient solution to attract bats by developing floral ultrasound reflectors, which enabled them to exploit the bats’ echolocation system.”2 But when is the last time a plant, animal, or any non-person willfully changed its DNA to solve an environmental challenge? Plus, how would these plants ever “know” about the benefits of bat guano’s nitrogen until after they already had fully formed bat homes to attract it?
The plants found no solution, developed no reflectors, and exploited no echolocation. People alone can perform these kinds of creative tasks, and the best example is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible.”
Pitcher plant reflectors reflect creation—God's Creation—and this interdependent pitcher plant-bat system showcases the ingenious design within that creation.
Pitcher plant reflectors do reflect creation—God's Creation in a way an evolutionist needs to "reflect" on.
The leaf is a sonic reflector designed by God to reflect distinct sonic patterns on either side so that the bats can detect it from many angles. The sonic patterns are fine tuned to only work when a certain range of sound frequencies strike it. These frequencies exactly match the vocal range of local bats, which happen to hold the record for highest frequencies of all bats so far measured. God designed a fine tuned pitcher plant to attract bats.
What could an evolutionist/atheist say about the pitcher plant that attracts bats at a fine tuned frequency?
If they say the pitcher plant "evolved" and decided to grow a sonic reflector pedal that was fine tuned for a specific kind of bat I would ask them how the plant knew to do this?
(1) Did it somehow realize that bats would nest inside its pitcher if it grew a sonic reflector pedal to attact a specific kind of bat?
(2) This would mean it was a "thinking plant".
Plants don't have the ability to think about their environment and adapt to it but evolutionists/atheists want you to believe they do. Think about it.
(Commentary reflection by Bill Rains)
Starlight And The Age Of The Universe
Young Blue Stars Found In Milky Way
Dr. Georgia Purdom, molecular geneticist with Answers in Genesis, comments:
As always the evolutionists give credit to natural selection and mutations, which just “happen” to come up with the same solution in both organisms. This is completely ludicrous when you consider the sheer number of genes involved. Just as common designs are used in engines to power motorcycles, cars, and airplanes, God used a common design to allow bats and dolphins to echolocate.
Echolocation, also called bio sonar, is the biological sonar used by several kinds of animals. Echolocating animals emit calls out to the environment and listen to the echoes of those calls that return from various objects near them. They use these echoes to locate and identify the objects.
I agree, "chance design" that "just happened" has never produced anything that is fine tuned as God's Creation.
A question I would ask an evolutionist/atheist is, if "chance design" was used by plants does this mean that plants have the ability to think?
Their answer could be that plants "think" by evolving over millions of years.
This means that plants are slow thinkers and have the ability to think.
Plants don't have the ability to think about their environment and adapt to it even if plants took "millions of years" to "think" about their condition but evolutionists/atheists want you to believe they do.
Think about it. Did plants take millions of years to think about how they were going to evolve? You can think and resolve this question in a manner of minutes instead of millions of years like the "slow thinking evolutionist plants."
Evolutionists must always add "millions" of years timeline of GooToYou to anything they explain about evolution. This is because their explananation is Pseudoscience which is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
(Commentary reflection by Bill Rains)