News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong by jessaustin on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @12:40PM (#21325707)
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 by ncmncm on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @01:47PM (#21326586)
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 by jessaustin on Tuesday October 22, 2019 @11:28PM (#21330780)
TFA does not contain that evidence; the most straightforward reading contradicts it directly. Don't pay such close attention to Jayne Yack's "All of those ears, as far as we know, are tuned to ultrasound, and therefore most likely respond to bats." "as far as we know" is doing a lot of work in that proposition, because actually no one has done any of the research that would be required to show that any of the nine distinct ear evolutions were initially targeted at ultrasound. Later in that same paragraph, Jesse Barber more sensibly indicates, "It seems likely that ears evolved for that reason: to survey the world." The following paragraph begins thus: "When echolocating bats arrived in that world, moths then transformed their existing ears into specialized sonar detectors, by shifting their range toward higher frequencies."

One might have expected one of "the greatest writers on nature" not to have so confused his ardent fan.