A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
theatlantic.com
A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#2Apparently was a (sophisticated) just so story ...
http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#3To be so gleeful in its disdain for a couple of goofy mistakes, TFA misuses the language in such a way as to perpetuate a similar sort of mistake. "So bees invented butterflies?" "...moths then transformed their existing ears..." Yuck. Sure, it's just metaphor, but this sort of metaphor has historically caused a lot of confusion about evolution. Intent is not a feature of natural selection. Atlantic readers have a hard enough time with this as it is; they certainly don't need to read this pseudo-creationist garbage.
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#4To be so gleeful in its disdain for a couple of goofy mistakes, TFA misuses the language in such a way as to perpetuate a similar sort of mistake. "So bees invented butterflies?" "...moths then transformed their existing ears..." Yuck. Sure, it's just metaphor, but this sort of metaphor has historically caused a lot of confusion about evolution. Intent is not a feature of natural selection. Atlantic readers have a ha…
When trying to explain to someone confused about this casual use of language that seems to imply an intent to evolve, I have used this analogy before.
"Have you ever said something like: I need an alignment done; my car wants to pull to the right? It is clear to the speaker and listener that the car does not want anything, it is just a manner of speech."
"In exactly the same way, when a biologist says 'the finches developed stronger beaks to better crack the nuts found on that island' it doesn't signify intent or design."
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#5To be so gleeful in its disdain for a couple of goofy mistakes, TFA misuses the language in such a way as to perpetuate a similar sort of mistake. "So bees invented butterflies?" "...moths then transformed their existing ears..." Yuck. Sure, it's just metaphor, but this sort of metaphor has historically caused a lot of confusion about evolution. Intent is not a feature of natural selection. Atlantic readers have a ha…
Ed Yong is among the greatest writers on nature. If you have a problem with him, you may be assured the problem is you.
Intent is neither a feature of insect behavior, as we understand intent. Yet we happily talk about bees seeking flowers. Language is always analogical. When it involves birds and bees (or moths) we just notice it more.
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#6I take moths' hearing as evidence for Cretaceous echolocators. Other insects? Pterosaurs? Birds? Flying mammals that were not bats? Proto-crypto-bats? Could be any of them, or several. Most terrestrial species disappeared, so most of the interesting ones did.
It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace.
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#7To be so gleeful in its disdain for a couple of goofy mistakes, TFA misuses the language in such a way as to perpetuate a similar sort of mistake. "So bees invented butterflies?" "...moths then transformed their existing ears..." Yuck. Sure, it's just metaphor, but this sort of metaphor has historically caused a lot of confusion about evolution. Intent is not a feature of natural selection. Atlantic readers have a ha…
Ed Yong is among the greatest writers on nature. If you have a problem with him, you may be assured the problem is you. Intent is neither a feature of insect behavior, as we understand intent. Yet we happily talk about bees seeking flowers. Language is always analogical. When it involves birds and bees (or moths) we just notice it more.
The problem is not mine. I have studied this material enough not to be confused by confusing writing. I wouldn't recommend this article to a junior-high student, however.
[EDIT:] Actually I don't recommend it to you either. Just above this thread you're on about being "able to deduce the former existence of creatures that left no physical trace." Seriously? Hearing implies echolocation by predators? I can hear; so can many other animals. Is echolocation really that common? How would echolocation itself evolve in the absence of hearing?
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ed Yong is among the greatest writers on nature. If you have a problem with him, you may be assured the problem is you. Intent is neither a feature of insect behavior, as we understand intent. Yet we happily talk about bees seeking flowers. Language is always analogical. When it involves birds and bees (or moths) we just notice it more.
The problem is not mine. I have studied this material enough not to be confused by confusing writing. I wouldn't recommend this article to a junior-high student, however. [EDIT:] Actually I don't recommend it to you either. Just above this thread you're on about being "able to deduce the former existence of creatures that left no physical trace." Seriously? Hearing implies echolocation by predators? I can hear; so ca…
The claim is that, by the evidence, moths had ultrasonic hearing 28 million years before bats' own echolocation developed; and that some moths in environments without bats have since adapted to lower ranges. We must presume paleontologists can recognize the frequency range sensitivity of these structures from their preserved physical shape.
In what way would hearing not sensitive to frequencies that appear in the environment be adaptive? The existence of hearing adapted to ultrasonics implies the existence of something to produce ultrasonics. It doesn't tell you what those producers were, just that detecting them was important to successful moth reproduction.
One possibility would be the moths themselves making sounds. But why would they lose such a capacity?
It is possible they had to evolve to stop making the sounds to avoid attracting the interest of bats, but thousands of species all dropping it, even in places where there are no bats, is not plausible.
The best alternative consistent with what we know is that the original insectivorous producers of ultrasonic noise are now extinct, and that bats later evolved into a similar niche.
There are other possibilities that must be eliminated, through careful research, before we can be confident of late-Cretaceous echolocating insectivores.
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#9I take moths' hearing as evidence for Cretaceous echolocators. Other insects? Pterosaurs? Birds? Flying mammals that were not bats? Proto-crypto-bats? Could be any of them, or several. Most terrestrial species disappeared, so most of the interesting ones did. It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace.
> It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace.
Well, unless they didn't have a past existence
Try not to pat yourself on the back too hard
Re: A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong
#10I take moths' hearing as evidence for Cretaceous echolocators. Other insects? Pterosaurs? Birds? Flying mammals that were not bats? Proto-crypto-bats? Could be any of them, or several. Most terrestrial species disappeared, so most of the interesting ones did. It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace.
> It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace. Well, unless they didn't have a past existence Try not to pat yourself on the back too hard
I didn't say it was amazing to do it. It is amazing that it is possible to do it. You could too, if you were ... someone else. Too bad.