Bats

[JasonC]

I got a question for the evolutionists....

If evolution was correct.....Where did Bats come from. ??

[OPaul]

A mutation in the genome?

[megamanXplosion]

If you think the falsity of evolution can be shown by pointing to a single area with sparse knowledge then you're putting forward an argument from ignorance, which is logically fallacious. (I'm sure the creationist site that inspired you to post this topic was a bit more careful than you were in putting forward the bat evolution argument.) The lack of transitional fossils for bats doesn't cast doubt on the numerous transitional fossils for birds, whales, horses, and so on. Creationists seem to love the "silver bullet" line of reasoning, and it's fairly humorous.

The ancestry of modern bats is, for the most part, a mystery. The animals in question probably had small delicate bones, just as modern bats do, and those aren't especially great for fossilization. That's assuming, of course, that those bones weren't scattered about or simply digested by their predators. Those small delicate bones that did manage to stay intact fall to forest floors, whose soil is known for its acidity which hinders or prevents the fossilization process. Based on this extremely limited data set only educated guesses could be given. One of those educated guesses, based upon a recent discovery of a fossil specimen in India, suggests new palaeobiogeographic scenarios that could provide a clue toward their ancestry. Overall, though, not much information about the bat's ancestry could be gleaned from the fossil record.

Some information on the subject could be gleaned from related genetic research though. Here are some studies that might be helpful if you are genuinely interested in the subject:

Implications for Bat Evolution from Two New Complete Mitochondrial Genomes

Development of Bat Flight: Morphologic and Molecular Evolution of Bat Wing Digits

Edited November 28, 2007 by megamanXplosion

[JasonC]

As i said, A Question.... where do i say "disproof" or something ?

First: I don't belong to a "creationist site" are there any ?

Second: While i know evolution is a lie, Im not going to disprove it with one thing.

Hitler once said if you tell a lie long enough, people will start believing it.

Scientists are only finding things that God has already put in place....

If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????

[acies]

As i said, A Question.... where do i say "disproof" or something ?

First: I don't belong to a "creationist site" are there any ?

Second: While i know evolution is a lie, Im not going to disprove it with one thing.

Hitler once said if you tell a lie long enough, people will start believing it.

Scientists are only finding things that God has already put in place....

If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????

Lets face it Cmor, the only reason you "Know evolution is a lie" is because it contradicts your beliefs... beliefs you take as 100% fact.

[kernatch]

as a side note, the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins has a fascinating bit on echolocation in bats. strongly recommended.

[JasonC]

Lets face it Cmor, the only reason you "Know evolution is a lie" is because it contradicts your beliefs... beliefs you take as 100% fact.

Lets face it acies, the only reason you "Know creation is a lie" is because it contradicts your beliefs... beliefs you take as 100% fact.

See, It works both ways!

[brentaal]

Lets face it acies, the only reason you "Know creation is a lie" is because it contradicts your beliefs... beliefs you take as 100% fact.

No.

Creation is a lie because it ain't backed up with proof.

Btw, your arguments suck. All you achieve is people looking down upon you and considering you a narrow-minded prick.

[JasonC]

Lol, grow up... And I havent started any arguements yet!

[megamanXplosion]

As i said, A Question.... where do i say "disproof" or something ?

The idea of disproof arises in your statement "If evolution was (note the emphasis in the original post) correct... Where did Bats come from?" The challenge being presented and the connotation of disproof is easily seen by your emphasis in the "was correct [then]" statement. Every literate person here is able to see your sneaky way of crafting language to imply disproof. If you're fooling anyone, Cmor, you're fooling yourself.

First: I don't belong to a "creationist site" are there any ?

I didn't say you belong to any. I said that you were reading one (Intelligent Design websites count as creationist) when you were inspired to post your question. Everyone familiar with the evolution vs creationism debate will know that the bat is a favorite argument among creationists.

Second: While i know evolution is a lie, Im not going to disprove it with one thing.

You know nothing.

Hitler once said if you tell a lie long enough, people will start believing it.

Creationists website authors still say it.

Scientists are only finding things that God has already put in place....

Uh huh.

If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????

Humans are mammals. Mammals are animals. Therefore, humans are animals. Period.

You don't even know the definition of animal and you want to pretend that you understand evolutionary theory? Ha. Why do you insist on embarassing yourself in every topic you post in?

Edited November 29, 2007 by megamanXplosion

[JasonC]

If I was going to disproove evolution, which I will....I will use something more than "Where did bats come from".

I wont come here saying: The Bible says this, the Bible say that and its true, I will use info from both sides including science to proove and disproove arguements.

Thats a simple question, If you can't see that, then you must have something wrong.

[megamanXplosion]

You must have something wrong if you think I'm stupid enough to believe your lies. I await your disproof, liar.

[JasonC]

Hold on a minute....you have your beliefs, I have my beliefs... Im sticking up for what I believe and your sticking up for what you believe.... Im not lying....

And to the post that you just edited, I saw the arguement of the bat in a video....not on some website.

If scientists cant explain where bats come from, then there is something wrong....

"If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????"

I laughed at myself for saying that, because that is how rediculous it is, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHA

[megamanXplosion]

And to the post that you just edited, I saw the arguement of the bat in a video....not on some website.

My point was that the argument was not one produced by your own thinking but by someone else doing the thinking for you. I could care less what medium you leeched your thoughts from.

If scientists cant explain where bats come from, then there is something wrong....

There would be something wrong if scientists claim they could explain everything. They don't. That scientists can't explain something only means that something can't currently be explained, not that it's impossible. This is rudimentary logic, Cmor.

[CelticWhisper]

Hold on a minute....you have your beliefs, I have my beliefs... Im sticking up for what I believe and your sticking up for what you believe.... Im not lying....

You're sticking up for what you believe at the expense of those who think otherwise via your attacks on scientific thinking. I've searched your username here and read the majority of your threads. Your history of evangelizing and attempting to degrade scientific theory is not a mystery to me, nor, I'm sure, is it a mystery to many other people here. You're not being sneaky, witty, stealthy, or clever. Nor is anyone going to buy any defenses you have about me "coming into this thread and attacking you." You're posting flamebait, again.

With regard to the topic at hand:

The fact of the matter is that we do not know a lot about the evolutionary history of bats, yet. These things take time and a lot of hard work. Mind you, there was also a time when the concept of the gene did not exist, and it was a monk, of all people, who discovered it. What I'd like to know is what you will say when the bat's evolutionary history is more thoroughly revealed, as it will inevitably be in due time.

[acies]

Lets face it acies, the only reason you "Know creation is a lie" is because it contradicts your beliefs... beliefs you take as 100% fact.

See, It works both ways!

Not quite. Evolution happens. Creationism has 0 evidence. I don't need to believe.

[megamanXplosion]

Acies, don't confuse belief and faith. A belief is cognitive content held as true. Faith is a modifying term, meaning the belief is cognitive content held as true without strong evidential support or justification. You must believe something to be distinguishable from rocks but faith is certainly unnecessary.

[MGS4-SS]

As i said, A Question.... where do i say "disproof" or something ?

First: I don't belong to a "creationist site" are there any ?

Second: While i know evolution is a lie, Im not going to disprove it with one thing.

Hitler once said if you tell a lie long enough, people will start believing it.

Scientists are only finding things that God has already put in place....

If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????

Funny you say that, because I think that God and the Creationism tradition have been told a longer period of time.

Makes you wonder which one is the real lie.

Hold on a minute....you have your beliefs, I have my beliefs... Im sticking up for what I believe and your sticking up for what you believe.... Im not lying....

And to the post that you just edited, I saw the arguement of the bat in a video....not on some website.

If scientists cant explain where bats come from, then there is something wrong....

"If you think us Humans belong in the animal kingdom, you believe that .... monkey want a banana ??????"

I laughed at myself for saying that, because that is how rediculous it is, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHA

If you knew the first thing about Taxonomy, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

But hey, your ignorance is entertaining to us all.

Oh, and by the way:

Bats are mammals. Though sometimes called "flying rodents", "flying mice," or even mistaken for insects and birds, bats are not, in fact, any of these things. There are two suborders of bats:

* Megachiroptera (megabats)

* Microchiroptera (microbats/echolocating bats)

Despite the name, not all megabats are larger than microbats. The major distinction between the two suborders is based on other factors:

* Microbats use echolocation, whereas megabats do not (except for Rousettus and relatives).

* Microbats lack the claw at the second toe of the forelimb.

* The ears of microbats do not form a closed ring, but the edges are separated from each other at the base of the ear.

* Microbats lack underfur; they have only guard hairs or are naked.

Megabats eat fruit, nectar or pollen while microbats eat insects, blood (small quantities of the blood of animals), small mammals, and fish. While megabats have a well-developed visual cortex and show good visual acuity, microbats rely on echolocation for navigation and finding prey.

Genetic evidence indicates that megabats should be placed within the four major lines of microbats (Yinochiroptera), who originated during the early Eocene. The same research also seems to show that the microbats are the original bats while megabats evolved from them independently through parallel evolution, where most of them lost the ability to use echolocation. However, the brains of megabats show a number of advanced characteristics linking these animals to primates. There have been deemed unlikely to have arisen by parallel evolution (for details, see Flying primates theory).

There is some morphological evidence that Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from Microchiroptera; if so, the Microchiroptera would have uncertain affinities. When adaptations to flight are discounted in a cladistic analysis, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features that are not shared with Microchiroptera. But this alternative seems to have little support these days.

Little is known about the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize well. However a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early Microchiropteran bat. The oldest known definite bat fossils, such as Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene (about 50 million years ago), but they were already very similar to modern microbats. Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.

Bats are traditionally grouped with the tree shrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and the primates in superorder Archonta because of the similarities between Megachiroptera and these mammals. However, molecular studies have placed them as sister group to Ferungulata -- a large grouping including carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and whales.

So you see, there is a pretty good idea of where bats evolved from.

[megamanXplosion]

I think Cmor is confusing the words animal and beast. Evolution does not say humans are beasts. It says humans are animals. Animals are merely living organisms characterized by voluntary movement. The word animal is derived from the Latin word animalis, meaning a being that breathes. The term animalis, in turn, derived from the Latin word anima, which means breath or soul. This goes back to the time when people considered oxygen a divine essence, spiritus now called spirit, that moved in and out of the lungs and animated the body. This is how we got the term respirator, "that which respirits the body." We have derived animate from essentially the same word as animalis (a different inflective form of anima) so an animator is "one who breathes life into something." One could say God was the animator of the human animal. These words are all intertwined. It's not an insult to be called an animal for that is what we are. Biology does not, however, say that we are beasts. The word beasts is derived from the Latin word bestia, meaning "wild animal." Animals aren't necessarily wild (humans and many domesticated pets are not) but beasts are wild (by definition). One should be careful to not confuse the terms animal and beast.

[kernatch]

it seems that a lot of people who attack evolution don't really understand the basic mechanisms behind it (e.g. natural selection). they see statements like "humans were monkeys" (which is a grossly misguided understanding to begin with), don't like what they hear, learn that it comes from the field of evolutionary biology, and completely disregard evolution altogether.

cmor, can you tell me the basic, general principles of evolution by natural selection? (i.e. non-specific to any organism). if you can't, do you want me to explain? :)

[acies]

Acies, don't confuse belief and faith. A belief is cognitive content held as true. Faith is a modifying term, meaning the belief is cognitive content held as true without strong evidential support or justification. You must believe something to be distinguishable from rocks but faith is certainly unnecessary.

Your too smart for me :rofl: But yes I see your point, I think I do get confused between the two as they are juggled about alot. But I think I got it now. Thanks!

[benplace]

Arent they kind of like flying rats?

[megamanXplosion]

Arent they kind of like flying rats?

http://www.tolweb.org/Chiroptera/15966

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/4/684

[include]

What's all the fuss? They were blind mammals that had hard time catching their prey, so over time they evolved wings which gave them an advantage....

As mentioned before, they're just flying rodents (i.e. rodents that evolved wings).

Am I missing something here?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Flight has proven to be an survivability asset several times. We had flying dinosaurs (or at least flying reptiles), birds, bats and many insects. It seems to be a common evolutionary trait that has been reused over the millions of years.

It you want to look at an evolutionary step that is not yet complete then examine a flying squirrel. Eventually we'll probably have a fully flight-enabled mammal (order Rodentia) that will make the existing flying squirrels extinct.

Bats are not exactly original in this regard.