We already know that the most basic mechanisms in ANN and actual neurons are very different. Spiking and neurotransmitters are basically everything in brains and don't exist in ANNs.

Also, AFAIK, insects rely on their (flat) flapping wings to create lift by creating vortices.

"Nothing" may be a little too strong -- physics is physics, after all -- but (small) birds and airplanes have Reynolds numbers about 1000x different and different underlying material science.

Airplanes are engineered (with a very small number of exceptions) to be stable during flight, whereas bird flight is inherently unstable, requiring a lot of specialized cognition so birds can fly.

I would think a lot of cognitive ornithologists (who I really hope exist!) would be interested in finding out about this.

At this point, I'm at the complete end of my knowledge of bird flight!

ok, compare a wheel to a human leg. If you look long enough you will find similarities, but you honestly cannot say that you "understand how humans walk" when all you can do is put a man in a wheelbarrow, move it, and say "look! my device accomplishes the same task!"

> A blade of a screw propeller functions exactly in the same way as a flapping wing of a bird, except that the wing cannot rotate without limits around the body of the bird

This is completely missing the forest for the trees. The "except" in your argument is doing an incredible amount of work. I think it's absurd to claim that the rotating blades of a turboprop are analagous to a bird's wings when planes l have separate structures quite literally called "wings" because they are directly inspired by bird wings. And I think the absurdity of that argument actually serves to prove my point.