Hummingbirds and Evolution
An article by Eugene Halonen is from Christian News, March 27, 1989
“The stark reality is that if both flowers and hummingbirds were not there, together, fully developed and fully functioning, at the very same moment in time, both species would quickly die!” During the week of February 12, 1989, public television channels presented a beautiful documentary on hummingbirds. The material included spectacular and unchallengeable proofs of creation that the narrator repeatedly described as adaptations due to evolution. He stated that in the tropical rain forest there are species of flowers, which, because of their peculiar design, can be pollinated only by hummingbirds with bills of matching design.
One flower is curved, preventing insect pollination. ONLY one particular species of hummingbird with a matching curved bill can penetrate to the stigma and can thus pollinate the flower. The other is a large flower, 6 to 8 inches long, which can be pollinated only by the Sword Bill Hummingbird whose bill is longer than its body length.
Each of these flowers is dependent for its very existence, therefore, on the hummingbird that pollinates it. And each hummingbird, as well, is dependent for its existence on the flower that it pollinates–the bird must have the flowers’ nectar to sustain its life. Since the flowers have no perches, the tiny birds must hover at the flower’s opening with wings beating 1200 times per minutes, and heart beating 398 times per minutes. The hummingbird uses such an enormous amount of energy while hovering, that it MUST FEED EVERY 3 TO 5 SECONDS.
Evolution (transmutation) requires millions of years (and hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils for each transmutation according to Darwin) to progress from a simple amoeba to a creature as amazingly complex as a hummingbird. Consider, too, the astronomical odds against a specific species of flower and a specific species of bird, from two totally different kingdoms, appearing on the scene at the very same instant. But the stark reality is that if both flowers and hummingbirds were not there, TOGETHER, FULLY DEVELOPED and FULLY FUNCTIONING, AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT IN TIME, both species would quickly die!! The hummingbird without the flowers’ nectar would falter and fall to its death within 10 seconds or so; and the
flowers would wilt and die shortly thereafter, having no pollinator to keep them alive.
You might well ask, “What does the hummingbird do at nightfall when the flowers close?” Would you believe that evolution, in its omniscience and mercy, has provided the hummingbird with the ability to perch firmly on a branch, then slow its heart rate to 36 beats per minute, and then reduce itself to a state of torpor where energy consumption is almost nil?
Isn’t evolution amazing? Without a mind of its own, evolution has somehow managed (thru the evolutionary magic of “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” and “millions of years”) to bring together two marvelously complex species, a flower from the Plant Kingdom and a Hummingbird from the Animal
Kingdom; and, in its eternal wisdom and goodness, evolution miraculously brought them forth (after millions of years) in the same split second in time, fully developed, perfectly compatible, ready to serve each other, and to live happily together for all time. Although mindless, evolution is clearly a kind and caring father!
The Lord Jesus had some fitting words applicable to those who would promote such SCIENCE, “falsely so-called,” Matthew 23:24, they are “blind guides who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel,” and Matthew 15:14, ” … they are blind leaders of the blind…”
And finally, please understand, if evolution cannot explain the origin of the universe (and it cannot) and of all life therein (and it cannot), then there is only one possible alternative, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” Genesis 1:1; and Genesis 3:20, “and Adam called his wife’s name Eve [Eve means “life-giver” in Hebrew] because she was the mother of ALL LIVING.”
…they didn’t appear together at one time, that would make no sense and be a huge coincidence. Evolution teaches that these two species would have lived together for a long time while they were still able to live separately from each other, later adapting to each other through generations of feeding and pollination, thus reaching their current symbiotic/dependent states. Not all species do this and such an example of exclusive symbiosis is extraordinary indeed, but it in no way disproves evolution but is instead a stunning example of it.
You also mention how evolution can’t explain the origin of the universe…it’s not supposed to. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang or any origin of our physical/temporal nature; it’s a genetic and biological science that explains how one species can adapt to its environment throughout the generations to better survive. The Big Bang is a product of mathematical and concrete sciences such as physics and astronomy.
Your PhD is in philosophy, not biology or physics. Please stick to what you know.
SO many mistakes and broad assumptions . . . so little time to expose them. . . .
Who cares what “Evolution teaches?” Evolution is a THEORY! You continually conflate MICROEVOLUTION with MACROEVOLUTION. Microevolution involves superficial adaptations within the SAME SPECIES. It can never create a new species and for certain not an intermediary species. You are trying to steal three bases on a bunt here, and it makes you look quite ridiculous. Your statement that Evolution is “a genetic and biological science” is preposterous and flies in the face of the two qualifications for theory to move into the realm of science: 1.)observable in a laboratory; 2.) a reproducible process. I learned that in the 8th grade.
Evolutions can never gain the respectability of intellectually honest people until it can point to MILLIONS of TRUE intermediary species in the fossil record and stop insulting people’s intelligence my pushing mutations and superficial adaptations as Evolution, not to mention rebuff Irreducible Complexity. Warts don’t become eyes, and a creature with structures in between scales and feathers (“sceathers?”) could neither swim nor fly. Natural Selection emphatically states that they would be the first to die off.
Yes, my Ph.D. is in Philosophy in Religion, or theology, if you will . . . . as was Charles Darwin’s only degree.
Hibernation is another thing they would have had to evolve all at once.
Also the Anglerfish Deep water, a “fishing rod” and luminescent all at once.
“The hummingbird without the flowers’ nectar would falter and fall to its death within 10 seconds or so”
So, these hummingbirds (which, presumably were on Noah’s ark) had “tropical rain forest” flowers on the ark? Then after the flood, the hummingbirds only had 10 seconds to find a flower in bloom or they died. Do I have that correct? And were these flowers on Mt. Ararat, or were they then confined to “tropical rain forests?”
By the way, how did the producers, writers, directors, et al, know these things about the hummingbirds? Did they acquire this data from the Bible or from evolutionary scientists? Or do creationists just cherry-pick what they need from evolutionary scientists to make a case for creation?
You are like a seriously myopic man groping in at blurs. The reduced oxygen content because of atmospheric changes during the flood affected the animals by putting them in a type of hybernatio0n. Look at the work of Henry Morris on this. I had lunch with the Exec. Director of the Ararat Foundation recently. he has see the ark (three widely separated sections. I’ll trust his integrity, vision and judgment.