Happy Wonderer

I love statements like this. Say again how much better bats are at detecting enemy submarines in 300 meters of water? Maybe Raytheon is on the wrong track here...

hw

Nic Tamzek

I bet you've got Cornelius Hunter right there. It sure sounds like him...keeps repeating the same general assertions over and over, rather than picking a specific case to see if he can develop a better answer than evolutionary theory provides, etc.

His most recent book is hilarious -- wild self-contradictions on every page, practically. Later in the book he lays out his cards and makes it pretty clear that the whole evolution thing is a Christian apologetics thing for him -- he starts quoting prophecy and "desiring to become wise, they became fools" (the rallying cry of those who don't have the evidence on their side everywhere) and the whole bit. He doesn't quite come out and say it but I think he's probably actually a YEC or hardcore special creationist. Which is highly ironic since he criticizes Darwin et al. ad nauseum for arguing against special creation.

Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science
http://enotalone.com/books/ASIN/1587430568.html

There is also a recent episode where Hunter gave a talk up in the Bay Area (IIRC), and asserted that the similarity of wolk and thylacine skulls was too close to be explained by evolution (this kind of thing is his "evidence" against evolution), and documented this by showing pictures of said skulls.

But, there was a paleontologist in the crowd, who observed that Hunter was just using one picture, of a thylacine skull, which he reversed to represent the "wolf" skull! LOL! In fact the skulls are easily distinguishable by anyone who knows mammal skulls, since the convergences are superficial and numerous hallmarks of placental vs. marsupial skulls remain in each skull.

But, by all means, invite him over here, we haven't had a feisty one in awhile.

Duvenoy

Indeed, Charlie D's been invited several times, and even given directions by a mod. I rather doubt he'll show up. Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable fear of picking up a snake that he knows is going to bite him. Can't blame him for that.

I myself would like to read his response to this:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/...a/chirofr.html

Might be interesting.

doov

DMB

He wasn't quite a drive-by, but he seems to have pretty much disappeared as a result of being asked to post here and in other fora besides GRD.

Charles Darwin

First, a fellow on another section of this forum (the general religious discussion) had this to say:

"Evolution is fact. We know it happens."

Do you fellows believe this? I have to say that I can't quite imagine how one would think this. Perhaps you could lay out the argument. I'm sure there are many details, but how about the general form of the argument?

Now second, as for doov's point, I'm unclear on why echolocation in an extinct bat makes this capability more likely to be a product of evolution. Can you elaborate?

Secular Pinoy

Sure, evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is simply the realization that organisms change over time. In more concrete terms, there is a change in alleles in a population. The theory of evolution seeks to provide a mechanism to explain the fact of evolution. These mechanisms include Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Neutral Evolution.

For a very good introduction to this, I suggest you read Evolution as Fact and Theory by SJ Gould.

Charles Darwin

I've read Gould's piece, I guess I missed the part where he showed that evolution is a fact (despite the title). Let's see, as I recall he pointed out that fossils exist; that some species are similar to other species; and the we observe small amounts of evolution. Therefore evolution is a fact? I'm sorry, but with all due respect to the late Professor Gould, even my pet cat can't be persuaded by that.

You, OTOH, seem to be saying something different. You're saying that the fact of evolution is changes in alleles in a population over time. This, of course, is not what Gould was talking about. Were you just making an example, or are you making a different claim than Gould's? If so, then why do you cite Gould?

Data

You answered your own question there. :boohoo:

Wounded King

The direct observational evidence of evolution, the 'small amounts' of evolution are the changes in allele frequency which secular mentioned.

As a paleontologist rather than a geneticst Gould preffered to discuss the fossil record, but the first tier of evidence he mentions is exactly what Secular described.

Duvenoy

Hi Charls! welcome to E/C!

I had another post on bats somewhere, but can't seem to find it. Perhaps, I'll re-do it later.

The point is that the extinct bat was very old -- are you YEC?

Also, not all bats echolocate, and, with one exception, those that do use the larynx to produce the sound. The other, one of the fruit bats, uses tongue clicks.

Further, echolocation ain't all that big of a deal. Many animals have evolved the trait, notably toothed whales, the tenrecs of Madagascar, and some species of shrew. Oddly, bats are the only fliers known to have done so.

Seems to me that if echolocation was bestowed upon these animals by some sort of deity, that deity would have also given it to many other creatures, who could use it to advantage.

On a side note, there are species of moth that take wild, evasive action the instant they hear a bat echolocating. Sound (bad pun! )evidence of natural selection, no?

doov