[_ Old Earth _] Is Evolution 'Bats'?

[Barbarian]

Quite true Barbarian.

Now try catching 5 insects in a minute that way!!

No problem, if you were small enough to emit and hear the right frequencies. Bat echolocation is just a modfication of senses you have yourself.

BTW, are you the Barbarian I once knew on another forum?

Don't know. What forum?

 

[Barbarian]

The origin of their wings is a non-starter, since the very first fossil bats already had them, and presumably knew how to use them.

Bats have very fragile bones, and aside from the teeth, rarely fossilize. They also live in places that are not very good for fossilization. We have some very ancient teeth that appear to be transitional between generalized mammalian teeth and bat teeth, but no bones with them.

It's not much of a surprise that creationism tends to draw the most comfort from things we have not yet discovered, while they find most objectionable the things we have discovered.

So once we were asked where the transitional whales or frogs or turtles were. But no more. The predicted intermediates have been found. On the other hand, we never find an intermediate that isn't predicted. No feathered rabbits. No hawks with fur.

That is even more persuasive.

 

[lordkalvan]

The word instinct refers to innate, unlearned behaviour, as I'm sure you really do know...

But it does not refer to behaviour which does not have evolutionary origins, i.e. it does not refer to behaviour that developed in isolation from physical characteristics. As I have pointed out before, and as you have generally ignored, if you want to examine the evolutionary origins of different means of locomotion, undoubtedly you will have to look at the origins of motility in microscopic life. Beyond that, many more organisms can fly in one way or another than are limited to a terrestrial existence. Why do you imagine that flying is so mysterious an ability that evolutionary theory is unable to offer hypotheses to explain its development?

Whichever instinct you may care to ignore, the instinct remains, and evolution has no accounting for it.

Eh, yes it does. Google Scholar has tens of thousands of references to work on the evolution of instinct.

We are discussing here the origin of bats' wings and their ability to echolocate.

The origin of their wings is a non-starter, since the very first fossil bats already had them, and presumably knew how to use them.

And you assume that there are no ancestral species that preceded fossil bats why, exactly? I have already pointed out examples of animals that lack the ability for proper flight, but can glide using skin flaps or even their body forms. Why do you imagine that these animals (some of which can be found within the same superorder as bats) do not provide a possible explanation for the evolutionary origins of bats?

There's that instinctive behaviour already in existence, and fully functional. Questions: where and how and why did it arise? And most critical of all, how did it enter the genome?

Both physical characteristics and appropriate behaviour existed in ancestral species that could be adapted for different purposes in descendant species. I do not understand why you imagine this is such an insurmountable problem.

You are sufficiently intelligent to recognise that any gradual hypothesis is also a non-starter - because somewhere within the organism is ALREADY the ability to register the new behaviour and act on it.

And you should be sufficiently intelligent to recognize that both physical traits and behaviours are both capable of evolving. But as you have clearly decided that evolution is impossible anyway, this is something which you are unwilling to admit.

Surely you can see that.

So X (can't fly) ..... n1, n2 ... steps......Y (can fly).

I don't know if you can see that n1, however incrementally small the difference from X, MUST have the new behaviour superimposed on X.

No, because the 'new behaviour' is no more 'new' and fully-formed in one fell swoop than is the 'new' characteristic.

But X also MUST have the ABILITY to RECEIVE that superimposed new behaviour. Otherwise, no matter how excellent the new behaviour may be, it is useless evolutionarily.

This makes no sense. You seem to be assuming that physical traits evolve wholly independently of behavioral characteristics or instincts. This simply is not the case.

You can't put a wing, or a wing precursor on to something that is incapable of receiving it.

Explain why whatever this 'something' is is 'incapable of receiving' anything?

Now where did that ability to receive it come from?

Explain why you imagine that an 'ability to receive' something comes from anywhere other than pre-existing characteristics of the organism in question.

And that is the root of all your evolutionary difficulties, as I'm positive you can see.

No, because they are not difficulties, no matter how much you imagine they might be.

Now to return to the question of echolocation.

We have seen that the bats' echolocation ability is not just excellent. It's so good that the US military is busy trying to copy it - and failing.

So here is a creature, however many millions of years old, in possession of a faculty which is far in advance of anything we can produce.

And, you insist, that ability just happened.

Nope, I suggest that it evolved, just like every other physical characteristic and behavioral trait.

I don't know how you think, but it seems to be in a very curious fashion indeed.

Not nearly as curious as how you think, it seems.

You would be entirely unwilling to accept that a perfectly functioning aircraft could possibly have originated in random fashion, such as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard.

You seem to keep imagining that evolution is an entirely random process. As I have pointed out before, it isn't. That you persist in repeating your erroneous claim that it is explains why you have so much difficulty coming to terms with it as a robust explanation for the diversity of life that we see around us and in the fossil record.

Yet here, we have a super-duper aircraft, in many ways far superior to any we have been able to produce, one of the most highly successful mammalian species of all time, and here are you attempting to avoid the blindingly obvious conclusion that it could not have appeared by chance processes.

There you go again. I assume no such thing.

You have nothing better to offer than casuistry - certainly you have no science to back up your conclusion.

On the contrary, it seems that you have nothing to back up your arguments except personal incredulity and a willingness to ignore arguments that counter various claims you have made.

I offer you the facts of flight, echo-location and all the anatomical and physiological functions in the creature.

Facts, I say. No hypotheses.

On the contrary, you offer the hypothesis that these characteristics and behaviours could not have evolved simply because you find it personally incredible that they could have evolved and because the fossil record is insufficiently detailed to provide you with the step-by-step, species-by-species evolutionary trail that leads to bats.

And I demand an explanation of how they could have originated.

The explanation is that they 'originated' from pre-existing physical characteristics and associated behaviour in ancestral species, for example from amongst animals perhaps analogous to the so-called 'flying squirrels' we see today - which cannot fly, but which can most certainly glide.

You can only mumble about evolution having an explanation as follows...

It's not a mumble, it's a simple statement. A mutation in the Bmp2 gene which controls the growth of finger-bones has been identified as a possible factor in the rapid development of flight in ancestral mouse-like rodents some 50+ MYA. Check out the work of Karen Sears and Lee Niswander of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Aurora in this field.

OK. So where's the explanation? I've never seen one, but would be willing to listen. But for heaven's sake, don't produce some stupid article which anybody can see says nothing of evidenced substance in answer to the question.

The 'explanation' is that the problem is not nearly as insurmountable as you try to present it as being.

Because I can't produce a good explanation of the facts (in your opinion), it doesn't follow that I have to swallow your bad one.

You haven't produced an explanation; all you have offered is that 'God did it'.

In fact, in this particular case, you haven't got one at all.

What you mean is that I haven't got one that you are willing to accept.

And that is my limited objective in these writings. There is no way to establish scientifically that God did it. It is, as you rightly think, an article of faith.

But as Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I'm eliminating the impossible.

Except that you have not 'eliminated the impossible', you have simply declared that it is 'impossible' and demanded that others prove to your satisfaction that it isn't.

The evolutionary non-explanation is impossible. We therefore must fall back on the 'however improbable' (in your opinion) explanation.

You pose a false dilemma. You have quite failed to establish that an evolutionary hypothesis is impossible other than by declaration and refusal to countenance that it is. If you believe that an evolutionary hypothesis is impossible to explain something as 'complex' (to you) as the emergence of bats, do you believe that an evolutionary hypothesis is impossible to explain something as 'simple' as the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria?

I'm positive that you intuitively know that this is right. Why not just admit it and save us both a lot of trouble?

Well, that would be because you are wrong.

 

[Deavonreye]

And, um, where did this strong nuclear force come from?

Newton produced a vast amount of work which has proved absolutely essential to the progress of science.

We are transmuting metals every day in nuclear reactors and bombs.

Why condemn Newton for trying to do so? And are you aware that the alchemists were responsible for the discovery of many chemical processes and substances which are highly valuable and being used even today? For instance, Basil Valentine invented ether - which has proved to be a wonderful anaesthetic.

And should we shelve Dawkins for believing in evolution, which is about as baseless a theory imaginable? I think we should, but that's just my opinion.

Are you equating alchemy with evolution? Just wanting to make sure I know what you're trying to say. Alchemy may have produced some things, but its major focus was trying to find the "philosopher's stone". :

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I can't answer your question on where the forces came from. I don't see how that is important.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I disagree [that it takes more faith to believe evolution than god]. The strong nuclear force insists that things MUST happen as they did. No magic involved.

Wait... you really got my attention with this one.

Ok, the strong nuclear force insists that WHAT things MUST happen as they did?

(This may be worth it's own thread.)

Are you crediting the strong nuclear force with evolution, or with the formation of life itself or what exactly?

 

[Deavonreye]

Wait... you really got my attention with this one.

Ok, the strong nuclear force insists that WHAT things MUST happen as they did?

(This may be worth it's own thread.)

Are you crediting the strong nuclear force with evolution, or with the formation of life itself or what exactly?

It might be an interesting thread of its own.

What I'm trying to say here is that the same forces that create patterns in nature are governed by physical laws. It's why snow flakes and natural crystals seem to have an order about them. The attraction of particles arrainging themselves in patterns. I may have mis-spoke by using the term "strong force", . . . though it may play a part in it. The bottom line is, physical principles are what must be followed. There is nothing supernatural in it.

 

[Barbarian]

God uses nature for almost everything in this world. Why wouldn't He? That's what it's for.

 

[Deavonreye]

God uses nature for almost everything in this world. Why wouldn't He? That's what it's for.

I have found no credible evidence for any god [and I welcome it, should it arrive]. Therefore, I see no reason to drop a supernatural force into a natural equation. This belief system comes from the past where something was unknown, and to those early men, even unknowable, so for them, "there had to be the influence of a supernatural being". As technology and discovery increased, more and more "had to be supernatural" events were found to have a natural explaination. Misunderstandings corrected. That's progress. . . and should never be considered a bad thing.

 

[lordkalvan]

BTW, humans can also echolocate, although to a much lesser degree than bats (partially because they can't hear at the frequencies that give the best resolution)

Try this:
Go to a large empty space, like a gym or empty warehouse with few obstructions like chairs, curtains, etc.

Go in the middle of a large space, facing a wall. Close your eyes and walk toward the wall, slapping the soles of your shoes as you walk. You will find that you are aware of the wall getting closer.

It gets better with practice. Vikings often navigated foggy fjords by shouting and listening for echoes.

Welcome back, Barbarian; you seem to have been MIA for a while. I hope all is well with you.

 

[Asyncritus]

No problem, if you were small enough to emit and hear the right frequencies. Bat echolocation is just a modfication of senses you have yourself.

????

I don't, and I don't suppose you do either, have an ultrasound synthesiser and emitter. (I wonder how the bat found out how to produce ultrasound and use it in this immensely specialised way?)

I don't have an ultrasound receiver and computer which can calculate the distances from any given object, especially moving ones.

I can't fly with my fingers while doing all this.

And thank God, I'm not blind.

Now what was that about a modification of senses I already possess?

Don't know. What forum?

BTDF

 

[Asyncritus]

I have found no credible evidence for any god [and I welcome it, should it arrive].

Have you seen any credible evidence against it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Are you equating alchemy with evolution? Just wanting to make sure I know what you're trying to say. Alchemy may have produced some things, but its major focus was trying to find the "philosopher's stone". :

Alchemy and evolution? I don't quite know how you got there, but no, I don't 'equate' them.

I'm not a nuclear physicist, so I can't answer your question on where the forces came from. I don't see how that is important.

I doubt if anyone can, so you're not alone on that point.

But it does exist, and nothing comes from nothing, as even Julie Andrews could tell you.

But if you're right, and the whole of existence and the existing universe came from this 'strong nuclear force', I would have thought that it was pretty important, myself. Wouldn't you?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No problem, if you were small enough to emit and hear the right frequencies. Bat echolocation is just a modfication of senses you have yourself.

????

I don't, and I don't suppose you do either, have an ultrasound synthesiser and emitter.

You would if your vocal cords and organ of Corti were small enough. "Ultrasound" is just ordinary sound at frequencies above our hearing range.

(I wonder how the bat found out how to produce ultrasound and use it in this immensely specialised way?)

Many small animals do it, because they are small enough. I didn't think about it until you brought it up, but organisms of similar size should have at least a rudimentary capability of ultrasound navigation.

So I took a look. Turns out that they do:
The only terrestrial mammals known to echolocate are two genera (Sorex and Blarina) of shrews and the tenrecs of Madagascar. These include the Vagrant Shrew (Sorex vagrans), the Common or Eurasian Shrew (Sorex araneus), and the Northern Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda). The shrews emit series of ultrasonic squeaks.[8][9] The nature of shrew sounds unlike those of bats are low amplitude, broadband, multi-harmonic and frequency modulated.[9] They contain no ‘echolocation clicks’ with reverberations and would seem to be used for simple, close range spatial orientation. In contrast to bats, shrews use echolocation only to investigate their habitat rather than additionally to pinpoint food.[9]
Shrew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So this would have been a pretty easy thing to evolve into the more sophisticated version we see in bats. BTW, the ability varies from really good to none at all in bats. And it's kinda interesting that of the two terrestrial groups of mammals that do echolocate, one of them is of the group that is thought to give rise to bats, and the other is a very primitive mammal, much like the first ones.

I don't have an ultrasound receiver and computer which can calculate the distances from any given object, especially moving ones.

If not, you're deaf. Echolocation uses the same equipment humans do when they echolocate.

I can't fly with my fingers while doing all this.

But you can walk on your hindlegs with a grace and endurance few other mammals can master. That seems to be a much more difficult thing, given the relative number of species that can do each.

And thank God, I'm not blind.

"Blind as a bat" is a misconception. Most of them see rather well.

Generally, the visual acuity is similar to that of rats and mice, suggesting that cm-sized object can be discriminated at ranges less than a few metres. Studies on pattern discrimination have yielded highly variable results. Fruit and nectar eating species respond to patterns to a larger extent than aerial insectivores.
http://fladdermus.net/thesis.htm

Now what was that about a modification of senses I already possess?

If your voicebox and organ of Corti were modified to make and detect higher frequencies, and if your auditory center were enlarged to make it more sensitive, you'd be able to do it, the same way humans can with lower frequency sounds.

Barbarian ask:
Don't know. What forum?

BTDF

Christadelphians? Maybe. Long time ago, perhaps. I think someone asked me to go on and take a look.

Have to go back and see...

 

[Barbarian]

Welcome back, Barbarian; you seem to have been MIA for a while. I hope all is well with you.

Everything is fine, thank you. Good to be back. Had a few projects to get finished.

 

[Deavonreye]

Have you seen any credible evidence against it?

It is hard to find credible evidence against that which is completely untestable.

As for the "strong nuclear force", as I stated above, I may have mispoken on using those words, though that force probably had some playtime in how life came to be, it was among other necessary forces as well.

Bottom line is, while we may not know everything about the first life that came to be, that doesn't automatically conclude "a supernatural involvement".

 

[Asyncritus]

It is hard to find credible evidence against that which is completely untestable.

I'm not sure that everything can be tested or even measured. Which doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for the "strong nuclear force", as I stated above, I may have mispoken on using those words, though that force probably had some playtime in how life came to be, it was among other necessary forces as well.

I simply don't see how life could possibly come into existence on its own or by itself.

What we call life describes several functions acting together. Like breathing, reproducing, moving, feeding etc.

Any one of those cannot happen 'by itself'. What, for example, could make a molecule feed? Meaning attract more atoms to itself which will enable it to grow, multiply etc etc.

It's right here that Dawkins and his unholy crew of followers fall flat on their faces.

Life consists of a bundle/package of instincts - meaning behaviour which happens without being learnt. But purposive behaviour, behaviour which has a definite end in view, and which cannot happen automatically, is a fundamental feature of life.

And that is what I would call teleology. And evolution cannot accept the existence of such a thing, because purpose demands intelligence, and the innate intelligence shown by living creatures, both plants and animals, is unbelievably complex.

I don't mean the kind of intelligence we can measure with psychological tests and so forth. I mean behaviour with a distinct end in view, being achieved by methods which achieve that end with a minimum of fuss.

Take the bats as the example before us.

Every single bit of the creature serves a very clear and definite purpose. It has wings. Why? So it can fly at astonishing speeds.

It has echolocating apparatus, which as I have stated, is so good the US military is trying its best to copy.

It has teeth, tongues, claws, reproductive organs, highly complex mammalian physiology, a magnificent nervous system and brain, and other things simply too numerous to mention.

Every one of which is there for a distinct and very clear purpose.

But evolution is purposeless and only produces random variations which have no end in view.

And here's our bat with a huge bundle of interlocking and inter-related parts, which any fairminded person would (or should) recognise as being designed for the purpose of living: eating, reproducing etc etc.

And those functions are powered by instinct - because the bat has no idea of what is really happening, and how to make it happen, any more than we do.

So, how did the instinct arise, and worse, how did it enter the genome?

Bottom line is, while we may not know everything about the first life that came to be, that doesn't automatically conclude "a supernatural involvement".

It doesn't automatically exclude it either.

I maintain that if you find a body with a bullet hole in its head, you don't really need much more than half a brain to know that SOMEBODY shot him.

You may never see who did it - but somebody most certainly did.

So here's the universe and life, like the corpse with a bullet hole in its head. Didn't SOMEBODY do the shooting?

And if so, WHO?

 

[Barbarian]

I simply don't see how life could possibly come into existence on its own or by itself.

God says that the Earth brought forth living things. All the evidence points that way, too.

What we call life describes several functions acting together. Like breathing, reproducing, moving, feeding etc.

Most living things on Earth don't do all that stuff.

Any one of those cannot happen 'by itself'. What, for example, could make a molecule feed?

Chemistry. Self-replicating chemical systems are well-known.

Meaning attract more atoms to itself which will enable it to grow, multiply etc etc.

A.I. Oparin made systems that would do that, many years ago.

And that is what I would call teleology. And evolution cannot accept the existence of such a thing, because purpose demands intelligence, and the innate intelligence shown by living creatures, both plants and animals, is unbelievably complex.

It's perfectly consistent with evolution to suppose a God Who made nature so as to produce such organisms by evolution.

I don't mean the kind of intelligence we can measure with psychological tests and so forth. I mean behaviour with a distinct end in view, being achieved by methods which achieve that end with a minimum of fuss.

That's the interesting part. Engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes are more efficient at solving complex problems than design is. Turns out God knew what He was doing.

Take the bats as the example before us.

Every single bit of the creature serves a very clear and definite purpose. It has wings. Why? So it can fly at astonishing speeds.

Bats don't fly very fast. Can't. It's a metabolically demanding function, and mammals lack the highly evolved lung system of birds.

It has echolocating apparatus, which as I have stated, is so good the US military is trying its best to copy.

And as you learned, is merely a refinement of the systems already in place in all mammals. There are even some primitive echolocation behaviors in closely-related animals.

It has teeth, tongues, claws, reproductive organs, highly complex mammalian physiology, a magnificent nervous system and brain, and other things simply too numerous to mention.

Pick one of those, and we'll see what the evidence for evolution of it might be.

Every one of which is there for a distinct and very clear purpose.

That's natural selection for you.

But evolution is purposeless and only produces random variations which have no end in view.

No, that's wrong. Evolution isn't random in most cases; it's directed by natural selection.

And here's our bat with a huge bundle of interlocking and inter-related parts, which any fairminded person would (or should) recognise as being designed for the purpose of living: eating, reproducing etc etc.

Turns out that God uses evolution instead of design. And as engineers have found, that works better. He's wiser than some people thought.

And those functions are powered by instinct

Just physics and chemistry.

So, how did the instinct arise, and worse, how did it enter the genome?

Mutation and natural selection. I've shown you several examples. Would you like to see some more?

Bottom line is, while we may not know everything about the first life that came to be, that doesn't automatically conclude "a supernatural involvement".
It doesn't automatically exclude it either.

Right. God says that the Earth brought forth living things. Science is finding much evidence for that.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm not sure that everything can be tested or even measured. Which doesn't mean they don't exist.

At our current state of technology, everything isn't testable. However, what IS testable gives us some relevant insight into such topics. And if it runs counter to long held beliefs, I will take evidence over unsubstantiated/unprovable doctrines.

I simply don't see how life could possibly come into existence on its own or by itself.

. . . because purpose demands intelligence, and the innate intelligence shown by living creatures, both plants and animals, is unbelievably complex.

But evolution is purposeless and only produces random variations which have no end in view.

And those functions are powered by instinct - because the bat has no idea of what is really happening, and how to make it happen, any more than we do.

So, how did the instinct arise, and worse, how did it enter the genome?

I see a lot of unsubstantiated statements in your post [that I underlined]. They are opinion based. I'm not a geneticist/evolutionary biologist, so I'm not going to be the spokesperson of those theories. However, WHEN geneticists, biologists, and the vaste majority of other similar sciences, including geology, paleontology, etc. all agree with a premise, then I'd be more likely influenced by their test data over religious beliefs.

It doesn't automatically exclude it either.

I maintain that if you find a body with a bullet hole in its head, you don't really need much more than half a brain to know that SOMEBODY shot him.

You may never see who did it - but somebody most certainly did.

So here's the universe and life, like the corpse with a bullet hole in its head. Didn't SOMEBODY do the shooting?

And if so, WHO?

It may be that "a supernatural being" isn't excluded, but just because the human race is unable to CURRENTLY discover "abiogenesis", . . . automatically jumping to the supernatural is a kin to people not knowing/understanding where lightning came from, thus assuming it was Zeus.

I understand that these topics are hard to look at. I understand that when a religious affiliation must be defended, information contrary to it must be defamed at all cost. I get it. I was a christian for about 3 decades, so I know [and even argued on the side of christainity] the game.

As I stated, "the supernatural" can't be excluded. I personally believe that there may be a point in human history where we acheive the technology to test for that which had always been known as "supernatural". I can see how the "supernatural" could very well BE comletely natural, just yet to be understood by our current level of technology. . . just like the way we came to understand the mechanics of lightning. However, as for today, and if true [that "supernatural"] I see nothing that would put it at the feet of any specific deity.

 

[AKJVReader]

"Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We in creation ministries are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.)


Evolutionists are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.


Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants etc) originated.


Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: “...cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.†Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system - a religion!"


Ken Ham - The Lie: Evolution

 

[Deavonreye]

I will let another person explain why you're wrong about "evolution being a religion". What I would like to disagree with is when you said, "Evolutionists are working from the premise that the Bible is not the Word of God...". I can guarantee you that "evolutionists" are NOT working from that premise. The only thing that matters is what is found and can be tested. There is no conspiracy here. 2