2
   

Bat Evolution and Intelligent Design

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 02:29 pm
What do Bat (Chiroptera) Evolution and Intelligent Design have to do with each other? Nothing.

As revealed very early on in Wandel's wonderful ID thread, Intelligent Design is nothing but a bunch of pseudoscientific nonesense which is being used by creationists in a desperate attempt to hide their religious ideas behind a veil of scientific sounding terminology so they can sneak their religion into science classes.

But I mentioned Bat evolution in the ID thread and got accused of taking the thread off topic (god forbid that should ever happen), so I decided (purely out of respect for Wandel) to create another thread, in which we can talk about anything we like with regard to Bats, Evolution, and the insipid ridiculousness of ID if necessary.

The information on Bat evolution is sparse because so few fossils of bats have been found, but we can expect that bats went through an interesting transitional period just like whales did.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tertiary/eoc/greenriver/icaropic.jpg

"Oldest Fossil Bat : The fossil at left comes from Icaronycteris index, a bat found in sediments of the Green River Formation. This is the oldest fossil known for a bat, and is beautifully preserved. The preservation includes the full skeleton, plus cartilage and wing membranes. The fossil suggests that bats had fully evolved flight by the Eocene."

Since there's no fossil evidence yet to answer much of this, I don't suppose there are many solid answers, but it makes me wonder just what the original Bat ancestors looked like, and just how evolved they were when the dinosaurs died out.

The only animals today that glide using toe webbing are frogs like Wallaces Flying Frog.

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/animals/images/primary/wallaces-flying-frog.jpg[/quote]

But there must have been a time when the trees and caves were filled with small furry mouselike things jumping around with webbed feet gliding between trees. It must have been an amazing little animal.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 6,034 • Replies: 78
No top replies

 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:08 pm
Interesting topic, rosborne.

I wish my intelligent design thread had more science in it. (of course that is really the fault of the ID proponents themselves)

Intermediate forms is a fascinating subtopic of biological evolution. It would be great if there were more info on transistions involving bats.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:12 pm
Don't forget Glaucomys Sabrinas

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3198/squirrel2cj2.jpg
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:28 pm
These little guys don't have enough toe webbing to glide with. All the flying squirrels, flying lemurs and sugar gliders use arm-to-leg membranes to glide. Bats are unique in that they have extensive finger webbing in addition to arm and leg webbing.

timberlandko wrote:
Don't forget Glaucomys Sabrinas

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3198/squirrel2cj2.jpg
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:30 pm
Obviosuly designed by a creator with a great sense of humor!
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 03:32 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Interesting topic, rosborne.

I wish my intelligent design thread had more science in it. (of course that is really the fault of the ID proponents themselves)


At least you seem to have a controversial subject which generates debate, and longevity.

My topic is intesting, but without fossil evidence, or hopefully, genetic evidence to come, there may not be much to discuss. But, you never know, which is why I started it... see where it leads I guess Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 05:36 pm
Nick wrote-

Quote:
Obviously designed by a creator with a great sense of humor!


Too right.

You want more science do you wande? I'll think about it.

Does evolution ever waste energy on anything?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 10:30 pm
Farmerman brought up the example of bats in response to my post regarding sonar in dolphins.

The echolocation of either is so unlikely to have 'evolved a little at a time' .

It's not like running where one can run and another can run a little faster, and so has an advantage.

Echolocation either works or it doesn't. If you are relying on echolocation to find food, it either works all the time, or you starve.

If it had to 'evolve a little at a time', you're gonna starve and nothing is gonna be passed on to the next generation, because it won't be born if you don't survive.

The sonar of dolphins involves lots of specialized equipment and sophisticated processes. To presume that they all 'evolved at once' is of course absurd, and most evolutionists (to their credit) wouldn't dream of suggesting it. But to presume that it could have 'evolved a little at a time' is equally absurd.

It's gonna convey no 'survival advantage' unless it works. And to get it to work is not an incremental process.

Not looking good.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 03:26 am
You betray either your ignorance or your mendacity rl - likely some of both. What you do demonstrate is the failure to grasp the subject material you're futiley trying to debate. Whether you're incapable or unwilling is irrelevant; you evidence no understanding of science or scientific method, and you bring no science or intellectual honesty to the discussion, you merely parrot speciously objectionist ID-iot/Creationist bullshit misconstruals, misperceptions, and outright lies.



Some critters for a variety of reasons went back to the seas from which their ancestors had crawled ages previously. Vision being what it is in water, land critters, such as the protocetaceans, are at something of a disadvantage when it comes to locating prey in the water. Those more successful at locating prey are more successful at passing on their genes. Better hearing means more success at predation - it gets selected for. Over a few million years, it becomes refined, adapted, and more and more specialized - each minor increment conveying to its possessors reproductive and/or survival advantage while encouraging - rewarding - continued development. With more and more improved hearing, coupled with the ability to produce sound, no stretch of the imagination is required to understand that some individuals would notice and exploit rudimentary echolocation - perhaps - even most likely - that wasn't even a prey strategy at first, but was more involved with navigation. Whatever, that is irrelevant in face of the fact it can be exploited for prey location, obviously was, and once it appeared in rudimentary form it began to be selected for. Those that used it better had more offspring, who in turn had more offspring etc. etc. etc. ... a few million years of that, and you've got echolocation capabilities on the order of those we see today in the critters that use it - cetaceans, bats, and some birds. That's the way evolution works, and that's what the fossil record shows - whether you can wrap you brain around it or not. What you constantly ignore is that what nature selects for is what works ... and once a chain is set in motion, it tends to proceed in the direction of greater and greater success.

Quote:
Evolution Of Whale Hearing Unfolds In Fossil Record
Arlington, Va. -- An international team of scientists has traced the evolution of hearing in modern cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). "This study of the early evolution of whales demonstrates the changes that took place in whales' outer and middle ears, required for the transition from a land-based to a marine-based existence," said Rich Lane, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s geology and paleontology program, which funded the research.

The findings are published in the Aug. 12 issue of the journal Nature.

The ear is the most important sense organ for modern toothed whales, say scientists, because these whales locate their prey using echolocation. Directional hearing is critical: A blind such whale could find food without much trouble; a deaf one would starve.

The study documents how hearing in these whales evolved. The research is based on cetacean fossils representing four groups of early whales. The earliest cetaceans, pakicetids (those that swam in ancient seas 50 million years ago), used the same sound transmission system as did land mammals, and so had poor underwater hearing. More recent cetaceans, remingtonocetids and protocetids (those that lived 43-46 million years ago), retained the land-mammal system, but also developed a new sound transmission system.

"The fossils document the ways in which cetacean hearing has changed, starting with ear fossils of whales' land ancestors and ending with the ear of near-modern looking whales," said Hans Thewissen, an anatomist at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM). Thewissen and NEOUCOM researcher Sirpa Nummela led the study.

The newer system was similar to that of modern whales. The later whales could hear better in water than pakicetids could, and could also hear in air, but hearing in both media was compromised by the existence of two systems. With the advent of basilosauroids (approximately 40 million years ago), the old land-mammal ear disappeared, and the modern cetacean sound transmission system began its development. Although basilosaurids were not echolocators (they lacked the sound-emission equipment of later echolocators), they had taken a major step forward in refining underwater sound reception.


Quote:
Learning to Listen
How some vertebrates evolved biological sonar

Then, a little more than 30 million years ago, the whale family tree split into two major lineages. One branch, the toothed whales, today includes porpoises, killer whales, and sperm whales. This branch evolved organs to produce high-frequency chirps and inner ear structures to detect them. By 18 million years ago, the ancestors of today's dolphins had an ear structure that suggests that they could echolocate as well as their modern relatives can.

(Lotsa good stuff on bats in that article, too - but rl aimed his ignorance at cetaceans, so that's the focus of this post)

Quote:
Eocene evolution of whale hearing (Abstract)
Sirpa Nummela, J. G. M. Thewissen, Sunil Bajpai, S. Taseer Hussain and Kishor Kumar

The origin of whales (order Cetacea) is one of the best-documented examples of macroevolutionary change in vertebrates. As the earliest whales became obligately marine, all of their organ systems adapted to the new environment. The fossil record indicates that this evolutionary transition took less than 15 million years, and that different organ systems followed different evolutionary trajectories. Here we document the evolutionary changes that took place in the sound transmission mechanism of the outer and middle ear in early whales. Sound transmission mechanisms change early on in whale evolution and pass through a stage (in pakicetids) in which hearing in both air and water is unsophisticated. This intermediate stage is soon abandoned and is replaced (in remingtonocetids and protocetids) by a sound transmission mechanism similar to that in modern toothed whales. The mechanism of these fossil whales lacks sophistication, and still retains some of the key elements that land mammals use to hear airborne sound.


A longish, well done, authoritative rebuttal of ID-iot whale ****: Science Sunday: Creationists Lies and Whales Tales

Thewissen Lab: Whale Origins Research

Smithsonian Institution:
Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, Technical Literature (A-J)
Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, Technical Literature (K-Z)

If you want to discuss science, rl, learn some.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 05:32 am
timber quoted-

Quote:
said Rich Lane, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s geology and paleontology program, which funded the research.


Having placed his reputation on the line by the funding it is only to be expected that Mr Lane will seek to construe the results of the research in a manner which demonstrates how wise he had been to do so as, if his wisdom is so demonstrated, he becomes an obvious candidate for promotion and all that might flow from it.

It is known in the trade as "spin".

e.g.- "International team of scientists" sounds a lot better that "a bunch of skiving freeloaders having a good time at taxpayer's expense on a ship chartered from one of Mr Rich's pals and who's qualifications have been decided upon by various methods not excluding variations on the casting couch and coming to conclusions which only seem not simple and obvious when presented in a language that only insiders can understand.

e.g.-

Quote:
The ear is the most important sense organ for modern toothed whales, say scientists, because these whales locate their prey using echolocation.


One can hardly get more simple and obvious and circular than that and it does rather underplay the function of the maw into which the prey is drawn. In seas rich with prey the mouth might well be a much more important sense organ for without it any amount of prey would make no difference.

It does seem a trifle teleological timber.

Have you read the passages in Ulysses where Mr Deasy is depicted cajoling Stephen with ready cash to use his influence with an editor to get a letter of his published in the paper. I hope you don't think such methods stopped evolving in 1904.

You might though because if they didn't it might not suit the case you make so well.

Quote:


That vaguely reminds me of young Caulfield's essay on Egypt which his tutor found so tiresome.

I thought that the comma after "program" was unnecessary but I'll admit that's a bit picky.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 06:46 am
rl
Quote:
Farmerman brought up the example of bats in response to my post regarding sonar in dolphins.

The echolocation of either is so unlikely to have 'evolved a little at a time' .


What Farmerman actually did was to give pretty much a precis of the sites Timber posted (no graphics) and Farmerman ended with a derisive sneer that rl couldnt have picked a worse example to express his incredulity. It is understood that when he says "It ' s highly unlikely that anything such as gradual rise of echolocation could occur"

This RL does without ANY evidence. He just pulls it out of his Bible. (Thats what he calls real science). However, what I stated was that the evidence for the gradual rise of echolocation is so well documented and based upon geologic evidence, its also underpinned by cross corroborating evidence .
I ended with a challenge that, if RL really wanted to make a case about lack of evidence in the gradual rise of echolocation within an order, he should have used bats, since the fossil record of bats , at their critical develomental stages , is quite limited.

RL cannot make the inference he did. like I ignored his point, I did not. RL just likes to ignore evidence and continue his Creationist viewpoint as if no previous discussions had gone on.
Im afraid that RL's sele ctive views on anything science must constantly be recalibrated . Im sure , wityh Timbers web sites RL will now exclude whales from his "Drawer of Incredulity".

Keep trying the cheap shots RL , I think Ive been one person whose been quite fair with you, you dont want me to go into "rabid scientist mode" .
sorry ros, RL sometimes gets a little annoying when he jumps threads and makes silly claims with some implied authority. He has none.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 07:16 am
fm wrote-

Quote:
Keep trying the cheap shots RL


Oh do rl. fm loves them. In comic duo parlance you're the feeder.

What about the dear shots fm? I know they are bullshit and show my ignorance and all that but what about them?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 07:32 am
spendi, get your head out of your ass and really try to make some sense. Do
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 08:05 am
fm wrote- even having been warned not to assert again-

Quote:
spendi, get your head out of your ass and really try to make some sense. Do


All I did was try to give some real life, real time feel to the phrase-"international team of scientists" for viewers who might otherwise go weak at the knees with awe; a reducing number I hope. The general situation where there's a small intimate group on a fat grant spinning out some plots and dealing with unavoidables from about 10 am to 3 pm with a liesurely lunch and a barney about a parking space. Hands in pockets.

Then writing it all up for the greater glory of the funder/s leaving out all the interesting stuff which novelists focus on. Here comes the carnival so to speak.

I might add that if I did have my head up my arse I would know about it which is better than not knowing because in the latter case it will remain there for ever.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 10:01 am
spendius wrote:
timber quoted-

Quote:
said Rich Lane, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s geology and paleontology program, which funded the research.


Having placed his reputation on the line by the funding it is only to be expected that Mr Lane will seek to construe the results of the research in a manner which demonstrates how wise he had been to do so as, if his wisdom is so demonstrated, he becomes an obvious candidate for promotion and all that might flow from it.

It is known in the trade as "spin".

e.g.- "International team of scientists" sounds a lot better that "a bunch of skiving freeloaders having a good time at taxpayer's expense on a ship chartered from one of Mr Rich's pals and who's qualifications have been decided upon by various methods not excluding variations on the casting couch and coming to conclusions which only seem not simple and obvious when presented in a language that only insiders can understand.

If spin were subject to rigorous verification and peer review you might have a point other than between your ears.

Quote:
e.g.-

Quote:
The ear is the most important sense organ for modern toothed whales, say scientists, because these whales locate their prey using echolocation.


One can hardly get more simple and obvious and circular than that and it does rather underplay the function of the maw into which the prey is drawn. In seas rich with prey the mouth might well be a much more important sense organ for without it any amount of prey would make no difference.

It does seem a trifle teleological timber.

Not to one who is aware of and understands the differences between toothed whales and baleen whales.

Quote:
Have you read the passages in Ulysses where Mr Deasy is depicted cajoling Stephen with ready cash to use his influence with an editor to get a letter of his published in the paper. I hope you don't think such methods stopped evolving in 1904.

You might though because if they didn't it might not suit the case you make so well.

Science self-corrects, spendi; error and fraud, when they occur, regulalrly are exposed and rejected, generally much to the embarrassment and inconvenience of those responsible for such - unlike whatever may be the discipline to which you subscribe.

blathering tediously to a typically non sequitur conclusion, spendi at last wrote:
Quote:


That vaguely reminds me of young Caulfield's essay on Egypt which his tutor found so tiresome.

I thought that the comma after "program" was unnecessary but I'll admit that's a bit picky.

Uh huh ... say, how do you feel abouit sugar coating vs icing on donuts?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 10:20 am
Interesting info regarding whale evolution, btw. Probably wouldn't have ever sought it out on my own.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 10:42 am
timber wrote-

Quote:
If spin were subject to rigorous verification and peer review you might have a point other than between your ears.


I was careful to mention the "when presented in a language that only insiders can understand." (Grantspeak, say, which the verifiers and reviewers you mention speak as though learned on the titty-bottle.

I in no way called science into question. Or its practitioners.

Are bats so important simply because a lot of information is known about them? I hope it isn't anything to do with that vampire stuff which would be ironic to say the least. Bat **** may have evolved unnoticed.

The "international team of scientists" I was familiar with have been known to play bridge all afternoon after a hard morning on their expense claims possibly due to them having no need to echolocate for their food which is, of course, provided in quantity by hard working people up and down the land, as Mr Brown often puts it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 11:04 am
IN my opinion, spendi had the desire to become a sxcientist or engineer when he was a larvum. However, he had neither the aprirude nor the discipline required, so he became an alcoholic.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 11:04 am
IN my opinion, spendi had the desire to become a sxcientist or engineer when he was a larvum. However, he had neither the aptitude nor the discipline required, so he became an alcoholic.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 01:26 pm
The constant sniping at alcohol is a symptom of puritans, mullahs and ayathollas the world over and they are all reflex asserters.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bat Evolution and Intelligent Design
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 11:02:18