Creationists solve the riddle of T Rex dentistry...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Crom**

This is the crap that gets atheist all worked up

http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421

**SilverMK2**

Any chance of a C&P for those of us who can't visit that site at work?

**Howard A Treesong**

"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that annoys. The science of evolution is not a controversial matter in any real sense, it's virtually universally accepted by scientific standards. That a few scientifically illiterate/dishonest creationists make a disproportionate amount of noise does not make for a real controversy worth teaching any more than the shape of the planet would be controversial if the flat earth people started getting out of hand.

**Kilkrazy**

House Bill 195, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 13, 2011, and not yet referred to a committee, is apparently the second antievolution bill of 2011. The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution" and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies." "Toward this end," the bill continues, "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution."

HB 195 is virtually identical to HB 1651, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 13, 2010. The main difference is that HB 1651's ornate disclaimer — "this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion" — was replaced in HB 195 with "this section shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." When the Missouri legislative session ended on May 14, 2010, HB 1651 died without ever having been assigned to a committee.

The chief sponsor of HB 195 is Andrew Koenig (R-District 88), joined by Doug Funderburk (R-District 12), Kurt Bahr (R-District 19), Charlie Davis (R-District 128), Bill Reiboldt (R-District 130), Thomas Long (R-District 134), Dwight Scharnhorst (R-District 93), Shane Schoelle (R-District 139), Kathie Conway (R-District 14), Chuck Gatschenberger (R-District 13), Darrell Pollock (R-District 146), Rick Stream (R-District 94), Rodney Schad (R-District 115), and David Sater (R-District 68). Funderburk, Davis, Sater, Stream, Schad, and Pollock were also cosponsors of HB 1651 in 2010. HB 1651's chief sponsor Robert Wayne Cooper (R-District 155), who previously introduced a string of unsuccessful antievolution bills — HB 911 and 1722 (which called for equal time for "intelligent design" in the state's public schools) in 2004, HB 1266 in 2006, HB 2554 in 2008, and HB 656 in 2009 — in Missouri, was termed out of office in 2010.

Not only atheists, but constitutionalists and scientists will be annoyed. So should tax payers.

This bill will waste a lot of time and money if it goes forwards, and will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional if it gecomes law.

**Frazzled**

It won't. Who cares? There are bills introduced every year calling for the disbanding of the Union and the Federal Reserve, and making the official language Swedish. no one gives a gak.

**Crom**

SilverMK2 wrote:
reds8n wrote:kind of relevant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647

Horizon: Are We Still Evolving? will be on BBC Two at 2100 on Tuesday 1 March 2011 and afterwards on BBC iPlayer

go go go sky plus/equivalent !

Our appendix has been gradually reducing in size over the generations so I doubt that we are not evolving. What we need to do is get science in there to speed up the process - splice in some more primate DNA to give us hand-feet, then add in some cat DNA for night vision, some dog DNA for super smell, and some Einstein DNA so that we can finally set the timer on the damn VCR!

People have also been documented with no longer growing wisdom teeth. Back before modern medicine your teeth were just horrible. Wisdom teeth came in later in life to push out rotten old teeth to replace them with more newer teeth. We are evolving to no longer need them.

Like the TV show Fringe... some people seriously consider this a reality... those people watch too much TV

Oh my favorite is technology on TV and movies that people think is real. CSI crime labs are 100% fictitious and 100% hilarious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:It won't. Who cares? There are bills introduced every year calling for the disbanding of the Union and the Federal Reserve, and making the official language Swedish. no one gives a gak.

Uh it passed in Kansas, and now schools have the option of teaching it. Remember the whole flying spaghetti monster? yeah, that started because of the KS state school board.

**frgsinwntr**

Crom wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
reds8n wrote:kind of relevant

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647

Horizon: Are We Still Evolving? will be on BBC Two at 2100 on Tuesday 1 March 2011 and afterwards on BBC iPlayer

go go go sky plus/equivalent !

Our appendix has been gradually reducing in size over the generations so I doubt that we are not evolving. What we need to do is get science in there to speed up the process - splice in some more primate DNA to give us hand-feet, then add in some cat DNA for night vision, some dog DNA for super smell, and some Einstein DNA so that we can finally set the timer on the damn VCR!

People have also been documented with no longer growing wisdom teeth. Back before modern medicine your teeth were just horrible. Wisdom teeth came in later in life to push out rotten old teeth to replace them with more newer teeth. We are evolving to no longer need them.

Like the TV show Fringe... some people seriously consider this a reality... those people watch too much TV

Oh my favorite is technology on TV and movies that people think is real. CSI crime labs are 100% fictitious and 100% hilarious.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:It won't. Who cares? There are bills introduced every year calling for the disbanding of the Union and the Federal Reserve, and making the official language Swedish. no one gives a gak.

Uh it passed in Kansas, and now schools have the option of teaching it. Remember the whole flying spaghetti monster? yeah, that started because of the KS state school board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
rejected 2 years later. They fixed the problem so ID doesn't show up in schools.

The wisdom teeth issue however... is not evolution as we would expect it. Which I guess is the purpose behind the talk. Organisms don't change according to "disuse" of body parts.

Wisdom teeth were great! people who had them lived longer/healthier back in the day when dental care was poor. nowadays they are removed. they simply do not have an impact on us surviving and passing on our DNA... Its an interesting aside as to how our technology has impacted our evolution

**Crom**

frgsinwntr wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
rejected 2 years later. They fixed the problem so ID doesn't show up in schools.

The wisdom teeth issue however... is not evolution as we would expect it. Which I guess is the purpose behind the talk. Organisms don't change according to "disuse" of body parts.

Wisdom teeth were great! people who had them lived longer/healthier back in the day when dental care was poor. nowadays they are removed. they simply do not have an impact on us surviving and passing on our DNA... Its an interesting aside as to how our technology has impacted our evolution

I think that is debatable, there are cases of animals changing so much over so many years that they in fact have changed to not using a part of their body. Look at the whale and the video I posted a few pages back on it.

**frgsinwntr**

Crom wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
rejected 2 years later. They fixed the problem so ID doesn't show up in schools.

The wisdom teeth issue however... is not evolution as we would expect it. Which I guess is the purpose behind the talk. Organisms don't change according to "disuse" of body parts.

Wisdom teeth were great! people who had them lived longer/healthier back in the day when dental care was poor. nowadays they are removed. they simply do not have an impact on us surviving and passing on our DNA... Its an interesting aside as to how our technology has impacted our evolution

I think that is debatable, there are cases of animals changing so much over so many years that they in fact have changed to not using a part of their body. Look at the whale and the video I posted a few pages back on it.

I'm going to disagree... simply the fact that the whales that stayed in the water more survived better and had more offspring is why they are the way they are today, we'd need to do more research to determine why they survived better, but still

An example is if you cut of mice tails each new generation of mice born will still have tails... the genetics are there. This was actually a historical test done when forming our understanding of evolution as we know it. (found the name of the theory which was changed upon further understanding of genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism )

Simply not using a body part doesn't remove it from your genetics.

**Howard A Treesong**

frgsinwntr wrote:Simply not using a body part doesn't remove it from your genetics.

Obviously not in itself, but having an unneeded body part is cumbersome and a waste of resources so over long periods of time they will become vestigial as it's more advantageous not to have them, thus selection tends towards animals with smaller expression of these unneeded parts.

Some traits or mutations are almost selectively neutral. Possessing them is of so little benefit or hindrance that they tend to be passed on from one generation to the next because selection for or against the trait is so weak, they just hang around. In this case the frequency of a trait or mutation can change or be lost altogether through genetic drift, which is just the overall frequency of a mutation in a population changing by random chance rather than due to some selective pressure.

**frgsinwntr**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:Simply not using a body part doesn't remove it from your genetics.

Obviously not in itself, but having an unneeded body part is cumbersome and a waste of resources so over long periods of time they will become vestigial as it's more advantageous not to have them, thus selection tends towards animals with smaller expression of these unneeded parts.

Some traits or mutations are almost selectively neutral. Possessing them is of so little benefit or hindrance that they tend to be passed on from one generation to the next because selection for or against the trait is so weak, they just hang around. In this case the frequency of a trait or mutation can change or be lost altogether through genetic drift, which is just the overall frequency of a mutation in a population changing by random chance rather than due to some selective pressure.

well said sir

**Crom**

frgsinwntr wrote:
Crom wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings
rejected 2 years later. They fixed the problem so ID doesn't show up in schools.

The wisdom teeth issue however... is not evolution as we would expect it. Which I guess is the purpose behind the talk. Organisms don't change according to "disuse" of body parts.

Wisdom teeth were great! people who had them lived longer/healthier back in the day when dental care was poor. nowadays they are removed. they simply do not have an impact on us surviving and passing on our DNA... Its an interesting aside as to how our technology has impacted our evolution

I think that is debatable, there are cases of animals changing so much over so many years that they in fact have changed to not using a part of their body. Look at the whale and the video I posted a few pages back on it.

I'm going to disagree... simply the fact that the whales that stayed in the water more survived better and had more offspring is why they are the way they are today, we'd need to do more research to determine why they survived better, but still

An example is if you cut of mice tails each new generation of mice born will still have tails... the genetics are there. This was actually a historical test done when forming our understanding of evolution as we know it. (found the name of the theory which was changed upon further understanding of genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism )

Simply not using a body part doesn't remove it from your genetics.

That is cool, we can disagree. I was using the whale as a reference because they found hip joint and leg bones for rear legs for them. Now, we are talking a really long time, probably 100s of millions of years. It is estimated that the wolf-like dog creature that eventually turned into different form of mammal sea life, like whales, started hunting in waters because it was an unchecked natural resource of food. There were no other predators, so they became instant top of the food chain. Over the many different fossils they have found, they discovered common bones in each species. They also see that the nostrils moved, from the front of the face to the top of the head for more efficient breathing while under water.

Of course you are correct, this is all theory, but it has a lot of evidence supporting it's claim. Unfortunately, natural selection usually takes over when species are inefficient so the whale could be a very isolated case, or an exception to the rule. I also know that mutation is not really evolution either and can be passed down through genes.

**Howard A Treesong**

Crom wrote:That is cool, we can disagree. I was using the whale as a reference because they found hip joint and leg bones for rear legs for them. Now, we are talking a really long time, probably 100s of millions of years.

Well probably a good bit less than that, mammals didn't really become prominent until after the dinosaurs which is ~65million years ago. Mammals are descended from the earliest creatures to leave the water, as are birds and dinosaurs. Some then returned to live in the water like dolphins and whales and have vestigial parts like hip bones. Almost all organisms have five digits at the ends of their limbs though, lizards, birds and mammals because all are descended from a common ancestor with the pentadactyl limb. Other creatures did exist with 6 or 7 digits but these did not prove as advantageous.

Of course you are correct, this is all theory, but it has a lot of evidence supporting it's claim. Unfortunately, natural selection usually takes over when species are inefficient so the whale could be a very isolated case, or an exception to the rule. I also know that mutation is not really evolution either and can be passed down through genes.

Dont' really understand this, natural selection is operating all the time which is why most organisms change gradually but continuously over time. Environments and conditions are always changing afterall. There are examples of organisms that have remained unchanged for millions of years usually described as 'living fossils' but they are in the minority. So you seem to have misconstrued how natural selection operates in evolution.

How is "mutation not really evolution"? Mutation is the very basis for new and novel traits to be formed that may then become fixed and widspread in a population over time through natural selection and ultimately physically evolve the species.

**sebster**

Crom wrote:This is the crap that gets atheist all worked up

http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421

That's the kind of crap that should infuriate anyone who thinks science is important. Which should be everyone, but unfortunately a lot of folk just don't get that science is important.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:People have also been documented with no longer growing wisdom teeth. Back before modern medicine your teeth were just horrible. Wisdom teeth came in later in life to push out rotten old teeth to replace them with more newer teeth. We are evolving to no longer need them.

For this to really work you'd need to explain how wisdom teeth are prevent people from having children. That is, you'd have to explain how they're causing people to die before they reach the average age people have kids, or they make the person less capable of having kids.

I've got doubts there's enough evolutionary pressure on people that the gene for wisdom teeth would be diminishing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:That is cool, we can disagree. I was using the whale as a reference because they found hip joint and leg bones for rear legs for them. Now, we are talking a really long time, probably 100s of millions of years. It is estimated that the wolf-like dog creature that eventually turned into different form of mammal sea life, like whales, started hunting in waters because it was an unchecked natural resource of food.

Actually the creature was predicted to share a common ancestor with modern bears, as bears are often observed moving out into the water to fish. I believe Darwin himself speculated about this.

And then a few years back we actually found the hybrid species in a former sea bed in, iirc, Kazahkstan.

Of course you are correct, this is all theory, but it has a lot of evidence supporting it's claim. Unfortunately, natural selection usually takes over when species are inefficient so the whale could be a very isolated case, or an exception to the rule. I also know that mutation is not really evolution either and can be passed down through genes.

Natural selection is always going on in every species. Natural selection is the process by which the mutations that most aid creatures in a species from passing on its genes become dominant within the species.

**BaronIveagh**

SilverMK2 wrote:What we need to do is get science in there to speed up the process - splice in some more primate DNA to give us hand-feet, then add in some cat DNA for night vision, some dog DNA for super smell, and some Einstein DNA so that we can finally set the timer on the damn VCR!

Genetic engineering human beings is a really bad idea. First it will be little things, but then some neo-nazis start trying to create Aryan superman and pretty soon it's...

**Crom**

@Howard,

Not all mutations are a form of evolution, like the blue lobster for example. That is what I meant.

**youbedead**

Crom wrote:@Howard,

Not all mutations are a form of evolution, like the blue lobster for example. That is what I meant.

Evolution does not cause mutations and mutations do not cause evolution. Natural pressures on a species will favor those organisms with characteristics which aid them in that environment allowing them to pass on their genes, while those that are not favored die and don't pass on their genes. While mutations create new characteristics they themselves cannot cause the evolution of an organism

**AvatarForm**

FITZZ wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:

I'm a bit "fuzzy" right now but this picture isso epic.

Nice one Rubiks...I'd say Coconut eating T-Rex is an official meme now.

The question is, in what situation and how would you deploy this MEME?

**Howard A Treesong**

Crom wrote:@Howard,

Not all mutations are a form of evolution, like the blue lobster for example. That is what I meant.

Mutations aren't a form of evolution because they are different things, mutation and evolution are different concepts but they are linked. Mutation happens all the time, it merely creates more variation on which natural selection can act.

Mutation is merely a way for DNA to randomly change at the molecular level and possibly generate a different effect. For instance, because the DNA sequence codes for specific proteins, any alteration in the DNA code can change the sequence of proteins produced. Which may or may not be a good thing because the new protein being made might be very useful, or the old protein no longer being made might have been essential. Mutations tend to be either affecting single DNA bases, where it either changes an individual DNA base or adds/loses one, or affecting whole sections of DNA by deleting, duplicating, flipping or moving it elsewhere in the genome.

Some mutations are beneficial, some are deleterious, and some have no effect. The point is that natural selection is always operating upon organisms within a population, and tends to select for those that are most able to survive and reproduce. Whether or not mutations are occurring is incidental to this, because the 'fittest' survive. Those surviving pass on their DNA to following generations... that may be because of, or in spite of, any mutations they carry. But these mutations become more commonplace as a result of their survival and reproduction. And cumulatively the surviving and selected mutations across many generations gradually change the physical characteristics of the organism.

**filbert**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Crom wrote:@Howard,

Not all mutations are a form of evolution, like the blue lobster for example. That is what I meant.

Mutations aren't a form of evolution because they are different things, mutation and evolution are different concepts but they are linked. Mutation happens all the time, it merely creates more variation on which natural selection can act.

Mutation is merely a way for DNA to randomly change at the molecular level and possibly generate a different effect. For instance, because the DNA sequence codes for specific proteins, any alteration in the DNA code can change the sequence of proteins produced. Which may or may not be a good thing because the new protein being made might be very useful, or the old protein no longer being made might have been essential. Mutations tend to be either affecting single DNA bases, where it either changes an individual DNA base or adds/loses one, or affecting whole sections of DNA by deleting, duplicating, flipping or moving it elsewhere in the genome.

Some mutations are beneficial, some are deleterious, and some have no effect. The point is that natural selection is always operating upon organisms within a population, and tends to select for those that are most able to survive and reproduce. Whether or not mutations are occurring is incidental to this, because the 'fittest' survive. Those surviving pass on their DNA to following generations... that may be because of, or in spite of, any mutations they carry. But these mutations become more commonplace as a result of their survival and reproduction. And cumulatively the surviving and selected mutations across many generations gradually change the physical characteristics of the organism.

This is a good summation of it but what is most concerning to proponents of the selective mutation theory is that there are a number of cases in nature where spontaneous mutation could not have possibly occurred without direction of some description. Take bats for example, they have both evolved the ability to emit sonic pulses and the ability to hear and 'see' by mapping these pulses. For both mutations to have occurred at the same time is statistically improbable. Likewise, if one assumes the abilities evolved sequentially, then presumably there were generations of bats flying into walls because they could squeak yet not hear - again, a fairly improbable scenario.

The only conclusion you can draw from it is that both mutations can't really exist without the other; there is no generational benefit for doing so. Personally, I absolutely do not believe in God, creationism or any other form of directed or intended creation but I am at loss to explain things like the bat and the myriad of other examples that exist in nature; I don't think a suitable theory exists to encompass it all.

**Howard A Treesong**

filbert wrote:The only conclusion you can draw from it is that both mutations can't really exist without the other; there is no generational benefit for doing so. Personally, I absolutely do not believe in God, creationism or any other form of directed or intended creation but I am at loss to explain things like the bat and the myriad of other examples that exist in nature; I don't think a suitable theory exists to encompass it all.

I'm not familiar with the situation in bats but for examples of this nature it's sometimes suggested that one arose first but served a different purpose and was adapted to suit the second feature. Things like sight and hearing are not the result of single mutations but many things accumulating because they are such complex organs, so there are a lot of intermediate stages between blindness and high quality sight. The original functions and those at the intermediate stages are different to those in the modern form. Originally the features each could have been dual function, meaning they are somewhat useful on their own and then gradually adapted towards complementing each other until the second function was not required. You wouldn't get a mutations granting them the dual ability to emit/receive sonic pulses at a high quality, it would have to be a gradual process.

It's rather an extension of the "what use is half an eye" argument. Well evolutionary speaking, a half evolved eye (by human standards) is quite useful, even if it only lets you tell the difference between light and dark it's much better than no eye at all. Even a small use of sonic reception has applications even if it is primitive and you are not at all reliant upon it. Only recently there was a blind boy on the TV who could 'see' objects by clicking his tongue at them and hearing the echo. So it's not an inconceivable by any means, certainly not enough to say that it could 'not have possibly occurred without direction of some description'

**filbert**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm not familiar with the situation in bats but for examples of this nature it's sometimes suggested that one arose first but served a different purpose and was adapted to suit the second feature. Things like sight and hearing are not the result of single mutations but many things accumulating because they are such complex organs, so there are a lot of intermediate stages between blindness and high quality sight. The original functions and those at the intermediate stages are different to those in the modern form. Originally the features each could have been dual function, meaning they are somewhat useful on their own and then gradually adapted towards complementing each other until the second function was not required. You wouldn't get a mutations granting them the dual ability to emit/receive sonic pulses at a high quality, it would have to be a gradual process.

It's rather an extension of the "what use is half an eye" argument. Well evolutionary speaking, a half evolved eye (by human standards) is quite useful, even if it only lets you tell the difference between light and dark it's much better than no eye at all. Even a small use of sonic reception has applications even if it is primitive and you are not at all reliant upon it. Only recently there was a blind boy on the TV who could 'see' objects by clicking his tongue at them and hearing the echo. So it's not an inconceivable by any means, certainly not enough to say that it could 'not have possibly occurred without direction of some description'

Yeah, good points. All I'm saying is I don't think it is as easy as saying that 'A evolved as a response to B and in conjunction with C'. I find it analogous to Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory - I think there are still enough gaps in our science where holes appear in the various evolutionary theories. I feel Darwin et al started us on the right course but we haven't dug to the bottom of that particular hole enough to declare with certainty on the issue.

**Howard A Treesong**

filbert wrote:Yeah, good points. All I'm saying is I don't think it is as easy as saying that 'A evolved as a response to B and in conjunction with C'.

Certainly not appropriate to say this especially over long stretches of evolutionary history, it too simplistic, especially when dealing with complex organs and combinations of multiple genes acting together. It could be compared to the study of actual history, one historical event does not merely lead to another in a long chain as a simple story leading up to the present, it's a hugely complex thing with many influences feeding in and out that shape events and history.

Evolutionary science is much bigger than what Darwin described, in this thread we've mainly concentrated on 'natural selection' but there are other important factors like 'sexual selection', also described by Darwin and which is responsible for the otherwise hopelessly impractical tails on peacocks and the like. I only mentioned Genetic Drift and there are things like epigenetics and selfish gene theory and more.

**BaronIveagh**

filbert wrote:
This is a good summation of it but what is most concerning to proponents of the selective mutation theory is that there are a number of cases in nature where spontaneous mutation could not have possibly occurred without direction of some description. Take bats for example, they have both evolved the ability to emit sonic pulses and the ability to hear and 'see' by mapping these pulses. For both mutations to have occurred at the same time is statistically improbable. Likewise, if one assumes the abilities evolved sequentially, then presumably there were generations of bats flying into walls because they could squeak yet not hear - again, a fairly improbable scenario.

Actually there are quite a few species of bat that emit high chirping calls but instead navigate by sight. Only one member of the suborder Megachiroptera uses echolocation, the Egyptian Fruitbat (Rousettus aegyptiacus), which also possesses excellent eyesight.

**filbert**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually there are quite a few species of bat that emit high chirping calls but instead navigate by sight. Only one member of the suborder Megachiroptera uses echolocation, the Egyptian Fruitbat (Rousettus aegyptiacus), which also possesses excellent eyesight.

I too can read Wikipedia!

That's because Megachiroptera feed on fruit, nectar or pollen. You don't need echolocation to hunt fruit, nectar or pollen. Most microchiroptera eat insects.

**BaronIveagh**

filbert wrote:
That's because Megachiroptera feed on fruit, nectar or pollen. You don't need echolocation to hunt fruit, nectar or pollen. Most microchiroptera eat insects.

See, that's why I mentioned the Egyptian Fruitbat, which lives on dates but uses echolocation in addition to it's other senses. Most people tend to overlook behavior as a pressure in natural selection. The fruitbat in question doesn't use echolocation to hunt, it barely possess the required equipment to use it at all. What it can do is avoid a wall in total darkness. It does not 'see' by the echoes, it only acts as a proximity detection system.

The ability to emit sound exists is a very, very large number of creatures, for various reasons. The mutation in this case would not be the ability to make a noise, most mammals can do that. It's the ability to interpret echoing sound waves that would be the mutation here. The Egyptian fruitbat uses the same range of sounds it makes to otherwise communicate with other members of it's species to navigate, and is more or less in the same range as other bats in Megachiroptera.

BTW: Actually, I just walked over to the reference shelf and used it.

**filbert**

I bow to your superior knowledge of bats. However, an example of one particular species that hasn't evolved the particular echolocation skills and mutations that other bats have doesn't not negate the point I was trying to illustrate and was discussing with Howard A Treesong - to wit, that there are numerous examples in nature where if one were of a religious persuasion, would appear to have the work of a creator stamped all over them. Whether you choose to believe this or choose to believe the various evolutionary and mutational theories to explain this is another matter - I think such example exist in a difficult middle ground that both viewpoints struggle to fully explain.

**Kilkrazy**

I think if you were a bat scientist you could use genetic tracing to find out if there was a probable common ancestor of insect eating and fruit eating bats. This would be a reasonable explanation of how echo-sounding is found in both types of bats.

The point about evolution is that there are plenty of examples where it has been shown to have worked. We have various mechanisms by which it can work. We know the method of transmission of inheritable data (genes).

We also know that every example given of Irreducible Complexity to disprove evolution (and prove Intelligent Design) has been refuted.

Overall then, the Intelligent Design theory is not required, it does not seem to be correct, and the modern scientific theory seems to be valid.

Clearly when a case is found which cannot be explained by the current scientific theory, then it will need to be re-evaluated.

**Howard A Treesong**

Well the example of the fruit eating bat shows that you can have a species with underdeveloped echolocation traits that grant a certain degree of usefulness alongside things like normal sight. They could potentially adapt over time to rely on the echolocation more at the expense of the eyesight which would eventually become unnecessary.

The point I think was demonstrating that you don't need to jump from no echolocation to total reliance on it but that there can be intermediate stages along the way that have their uses.

...that there are numerous examples in nature where if one were of a religious persuasion, would appear to have the work of a creator stamped all over them.

It would strike me as bizarre that the vast majority of things are perfectly able to come about naturally and under their own steam without any need for external interference... but god then feels the need to override evolution and tinker with the likes of bat hearing of all things.

It's not really reasonable to look at these few examples and conclude the existence of a creator, it's rather bad science to postulate a positive result on the back of a mere gap in data. There might be something very interesting going on, but it's lazy to conclude proof of god's handiwork. One way or another they are most likely to follow conventional science like the vast majority of nature, all the popular examples of "irreducible complexity" have eventually been debunked with time.

Obviously some people will look at examples of the bat and want to see the work of god, but that's because they are desperate to see proof that validates their opinion rather than consider things in an unbiased manner.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

DNA for super smell

Given some of the posts on Dakka about personal hygiene, could there be gamers that have already evolved to have a super smell?