Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

[PoliticalChic]

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed contradictions among its supporters.
[......]

`

1. Be clear: nothing I ever do is dishonest.


2. This is exactly the debate I wanted to initiate, because it exposes the fallacy of Darwinian evolution.

As several posters have stated there is zero evidence of speciation.

3. Both Darwin and Gould admitted same.


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

b. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."

Gould

So.....are they being 'dishonest' .....or are you?


Now then.....how about we move on to the more significant question....why folks like you are so intimately wedded to a false doctrine?


There is an answer beyond psychosis......


If you don't understand the reason.....ask me nicely and I will OP that which will set you free: the truth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did bats "evolve"?

 

[editec]

We get hung up on the word EVOLUTION.

WE ought to use the word CHANGE.

Evolution implies advancement and suggests that improvements are what's going on.

I think that's an overstatement.

Bacteria that are alive today are as ADVANCED as we are, genetically speaking.

Now does anyone who thinks that the THEORYU of EVOLUTION is nonsense want to make the case that there is no evidence that there has been no CHANGE in the flora and fauna on the earth?

And if there has been CHANGE in the populations over time?

HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THOSE DIFFERENT SPECIES THAT HAVE COME AND GONE OVER TIME?

Come on not, anitDarwinists...tell us why there have been so many species that no longer exist on earth.

Where did they come from? GOD MAGIC?

I do not care what you DO NOT BELIEVE, I want to know what you do believe.

 

[Old Rocks]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

 

[Sunni Man]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

They don't actually "fly".

They extend their loose skin and do a short distance downward glide between trees. ..

 

[PoliticalChic]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

If one ever needed proof that you are clueless on the subject under discussion....

....this post of yours would be dispositive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed contradictions among its supporters.
[......]

`

1. Be clear: nothing I ever do is dishonest.


2. This is exactly the debate I wanted to initiate, because it exposes the fallacy of Darwinian evolution.

As several posters have stated there is zero evidence of speciation.

3. Both Darwin and Gould admitted same.


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

b. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."

Gould

So.....are they being 'dishonest' .....or are you?


Now then.....how about we move on to the more significant question....why folks like you are so intimately wedded to a false doctrine?


There is an answer beyond psychosis......


If you don't understand the reason.....ask me nicely and I will OP that which will set you free: the truth.

Ah yes, another 'I am the truth, the way, and the light'. Silly person, so full of twaddle and nonsense. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. We are using our knowledge of how evolution works to create life forms that do things they never did before. When a science progresses to the point that you are engineering with the basic precepts of that science, in this case, biology and evolution, those precepts are damned robust.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

Uh huh

Bats evolved from squirrels?

When did that squirrel develop echolocation because its the ability to both create the pitch and the ears to pick it up.

Which squirrels use echolocation

 

[Old Rocks]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

They don't actually "fly".

They extend their loose skin and do a short distance downward glide between trees. ..

Yep. And where is that loose skin located? And how is the anatomy of a bat with relationship to the skin they use for flying? Just as with the feathered dinosaurs, it had to begin somewhere. And we can see among living creatures how the eye developed from a photosensitive spot on bacteria to the wonder that is the eye of a raptor today.

 

[Old Rocks]

How did bats "evolve"?

Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?

Uh huh

Bats evolved from squirrels?

When did that squirrel develop echolocation because its the ability to both create the pitch and the ears to pick it up.

Which squirrels use echolocation

Sheesh, ever the dingbat. No, bats and squirrels are both rodents. And the present squirrel has no need for the echolocation, but I am willing to bet, has the basic genetics to develop that ability should future conditions and chance push the squirrels descendents in that direction.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994


`

1. Be clear: nothing I ever do is dishonest.


2. This is exactly the debate I wanted to initiate, because it exposes the fallacy of Darwinian evolution.

As several posters have stated there is zero evidence of speciation.

3. Both Darwin and Gould admitted same.


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

b. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."

Gould

So.....are they being 'dishonest' .....or are you?


Now then.....how about we move on to the more significant question....why folks like you are so intimately wedded to a false doctrine?


There is an answer beyond psychosis......


If you don't understand the reason.....ask me nicely and I will OP that which will set you free: the truth.

Ah yes, another 'I am the truth, the way, and the light'. Silly person, so full of twaddle and nonsense. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. We are using our knowledge of how evolution works to create life forms that do things they never did before. When a science progresses to the point that you are engineering with the basic precepts of that science, in this case, biology and evolution, those precepts are damned robust.

So....I post the testimony of both Darwin, of the eponymous theory, and the Harvard 'expert' who has written copiously about 'evolution,'.....and you link to the post....

....then do what all of you supporters of the fake theory do....

....you ignore the import.


Why is that?



'Cause you have no cogent response?



But I do like the 'I am the truth, the way, and the light' reference to moi......

Keep it up.

 

[abu afak]

How did bats "evolve"?

Uh huh
Bats evolved from squirrels?
When did that squirrel develop echolocation because its the ability to both create the pitch and the ears to pick it up.
Which squirrels use echolocation

Oh yes, why don't you go with "Duh, I don't know so it must be too complex for nature/God did it, Duh"

Why don't you Look it up you DOPE?
It's So easy these days.

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera (/kaɪˈrɒptərə/; from the Greek χείρ - cheir, "hand"[2] and πτερόν - pteron, "wing"[3]) whose forelimbs form webbed wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread-out digits,[4] which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium.
Bats represent about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with about 1,240 bat species divided into two suborders: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats.[5] About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous...."

Sure, "God made 1240 Different bat Species!"

Wiki continues: Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classification and Evolution

Bats are mammals. In many languages, the word for "bat" is cognate with the word for "mouse": for example, chauve-souris ("bald-mouse") in French, murciélago ("blind mouse") in Spanish, saguzahar ("old mouse") in Basque, летучая мышь ("flying mouse") in Russian, slijepi miš ("blind mouse") in Bosnian, nahkhiir ("leather mouse") in Estonian, vlermuis (winged mouse) in Afrikaans, from the Dutch word vleermuis. An older English name for bats is flittermice, which matches their name in other Germanic languages (for example German Fledermaus and Swedish fladdermus).[10] Bats were formerly thought to have been most closely related to the flying lemurs, treeshrews, and primates,[11] but recent molecular cladistics research indicates they actually belong to Laurasiatheria, a diverse group also containing Carnivora and Artiodactyla.[12][13]

The two traditionally recognized suborders of bats are:

Megachiroptera (megabats)
Microchiroptera (microbats/echolocating bats)​

Not all megabats are larger than microbats. The major distinctions between the two suborders are:

Microbats use echolocation; with the exception of Rousettus and its relatives, megabats do not.
Microbats lack the claw at the second toe of the forelimb.
The ears of microbats do not close to form a ring; the edges are separated from each other at the base of the ear.
Microbats lack underfur; they are either naked or have guard hairs.​

Megabats eat fruit, nectar, or pollen, while most microbats eat insects; others may feed on the blood of animals, small mammals, fish, frogs, fruit, pollen, or nectar. Megabats have well-developed visual cortices and show good visual acuity, while microbats rely on echolocation for navigation and finding prey.

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision between Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflects the view that these groups of bats have evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group.[14]
Researchers have proposed alternative views of chiropteran phylogeny and classification, but more research is needed.

In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological EVIDENCE was offered that stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primates theory proposes that, when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features not shared with Microchiroptera. One example is that the brains of megabats show a number of advanced characteristics that link them to primates. Although recent genetic studies strongly support the monophyly of bats,[15] debate continues as to the meaning of available genetic and morphological evidence.[16]
Genetic EVIDENCE indicates megabats originated during the early Eocene and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats.

Consequently, two new suborders based on molecular data have been proposed. The new suborder Yinpterochiroptera includes the Pteropodidae or megabat family, as well as the Rhinolophidae, Hipposideridae, Craseonycteridae, Megadermatidae, and Rhinopomatidae families[17] The new suborder Yangochiroptera includes all the remaining families of bats (all of which use laryngeal echolocation).
These two new suborders are strongly supported by statistical tests. Teeling (2005) found 100% bootstrap support in all maximum likelihood analyses for the division of Chiroptera into these two modified suborders. This conclusion is further supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera.[17] The chiropteran phylogeny based on molecular evidence is controversial because microbat paraphyly implies one of two seemingly unlikely hypotheses occurred.

The first suggests laryngeal echolocation EVOLVED Twice in Chiroptera, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids.[18][19] The second proposes laryngeal echolocation had a single origin in Chiroptera, was subsequently lost in the family Pteropodidae (all megabats), and later evolved as a system of tongue-clicking in the genus Rousettus.[20]

Analyses of the sequence of the "vocalization" gene, FoxP2 were inconclusive as to whether laryngeal echolocation was secondarily lost in the pteropodids or independently gained in the echolocating lineages.[21] However, analyses of the "hearing" gene, Prestin seemed to favor the independent gain in echolocating species rather than a secondary loss in the pteropodids.[22]

In addition to Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, the names Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes have also been proposed for these suborders.[23][24] Under this new proposed nomenclature, the suborder Pteropodiformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Pteropus than the genus Vespertilio, while the suborder Vespertilioniformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Vespertilio than to the genus Pteropus.

Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize very well. However, a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early microchiropteran bat. Most of the oldest known, definitely identified bat fossils were already very similar to modern microbats. These fossils, Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene period, 52.5 million years ago.[14]
Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.
Bats were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and the primates, because of the apparent similarities between Megachiroptera and such mammals.
Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria, along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.[1]

[Tree Family GRAPH]

The traditional classification of bats is:

Order Chiroptera
Suborder Megachiroptera (megabats)
Pteropodidae
Suborder Microchiroptera (microbats)
Superfamily Emballonuroidea
Emballonuridae (Sac-winged or sheath-tailed bats)
Superfamily Molossoidea
Molossidae (Free-tailed bats)
Superfamily Nataloidea
Furipteridae (Smoky bats)
Myzopodidae (Sucker-footed bats)
Natalidae (Funnel-eared bats)
Thyropteridae (Disk-winged bats)
Superfamily Noctilionoidea
Mormoopidae (Ghost-faced or moustached bats)
Mystacinidae (New Zealand short-tailed bats)
Noctilionidae (Bulldog bats or fisherman bats)
Phyllostomidae (Leaf-nosed bats)
Superfamily Rhinolophoidea
Megadermatidae (False vampires)
Nycteridae (Hollow-faced or slit-faced bats)
Rhinolophidae (Horseshoe bats)
Hipposideridae (Old World leaf-nosed bats)
Superfamily Rhinopomatoidea
Craseonycteridae (Bumblebee bat or Kitti's hog-nosed bat)
Rhinopomatidae (Mouse-tailed bats)
Superfamily Vespertilionoidea
Vespertilionidae (Vesper bats or evening bats)
Antrozoidae (Pallid bat and Van Gelder's bat)​

Megabats primarily eat fruit or nectar. In New Guinea, they are likely to have evolved for some time in the absence of microbats. This has resulted in some smaller megabats of the genus Nyctimene becoming (partly) insectivorous to fill the vacant microbat ecological niche. Furthermore, some evidence indicates that the fruit bat genus Pteralopex from the Solomon Islands, and its close relative Mirimiri from Fiji, have evolved to fill some niches that were open because there are no nonvolant or nonflying mammals on those islands.

Fossil bats

Fossilized remains of bats are few, as they are terrestrial and light-boned. Only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level.[25] Fossil remains of an Eocene bat, Icaronycteris, were found in 1960.
Another Eocene bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was found in the 52-million-year-old Green River Formation in Wyoming, United States, in 2003.[26][27]
This Intermediate Fossil has helped to resolve a long-standing disagreement regarding whether flight or echolocation developed first in bats.
It had characteristics indicating it could fly, yet the well-preserved skeleton showed the cochlea of the inner ear lacked development needed to support the greater hearing abilities used by modern echolocating bats.
This provided EVIDENCE flight in bats developed well before echolocation. The team that found the remains of O. finneyi recognized it lacked ear and throat features present not only in echolocating bats today, but also in other known Prehistoric species.
The appearance and flight movement of bats 52.5 million years ago were DIFFERENT from those of bats today.
Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches such as sloths and gibbons.
This palm-sized bat had Short, broad wings, suggesting it could not fly as fast or as far as LATER bat species.
Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides while in the air.
Such physical characteristics suggest this bat did not fly as much as Modern bats do, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its waking day climbing or hanging on the branches of trees.[28]
-

THAT'S how Bats evolved.
The reason you don't believe in evolution is you are Willfully Ignorant. (and to some degree unwillfully)
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

How did bats "evolve"?

Oh yes, why don't you go with "Duh, I don't know so it must be too complex for nature, Duh"

Why don't you Look it up you DOPE?
It's So easy these days.

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera (/kaɪˈrɒptərə/; from the Greek χείρ - cheir, "hand"[2] and πτερόν - pteron, "wing"[3]) whose forelimbs form webbed wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread-out digits,[4] which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium.
Bats represent about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with about 1,240 bat species divided into two suborders: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats.[5] About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous...."

Sure, "God made 1240 Different bat Species!"

Wiki continues: Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classification and Evolution

Bats are mammals. In many languages, the word for "bat" is cognate with the word for "mouse": for example, chauve-souris ("bald-mouse") in French, murciélago ("blind mouse") in Spanish, saguzahar ("old mouse") in Basque, летучая мышь ("flying mouse") in Russian, slijepi miš ("blind mouse") in Bosnian, nahkhiir ("leather mouse") in Estonian, vlermuis (winged mouse) in Afrikaans, from the Dutch word vleermuis. An older English name for bats is flittermice, which matches their name in other Germanic languages (for example German Fledermaus and Swedish fladdermus).[10] Bats were formerly thought to have been most closely related to the flying lemurs, treeshrews, and primates,[11] but recent molecular cladistics research indicates they actually belong to Laurasiatheria, a diverse group also containing Carnivora and Artiodactyla.[12][13]

The two traditionally recognized suborders of bats are:

Megachiroptera (megabats)
Microchiroptera (microbats/echolocating bats)​

Not all megabats are larger than microbats. The major distinctions between the two suborders are:

Microbats use echolocation; with the exception of Rousettus and its relatives, megabats do not.
Microbats lack the claw at the second toe of the forelimb.
The ears of microbats do not close to form a ring; the edges are separated from each other at the base of the ear.
Microbats lack underfur; they are either naked or have guard hairs.​

Megabats eat fruit, nectar, or pollen, while most microbats eat insects; others may feed on the blood of animals, small mammals, fish, frogs, fruit, pollen, or nectar. Megabats have well-developed visual cortices and show good visual acuity, while microbats rely on echolocation for navigation and finding prey.

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision between Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflects the view that these groups of bats have evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognized differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group.[14]
Researchers have proposed alternative views of chiropteran phylogeny and classification, but more research is needed.

In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence was offered that stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primates theory proposes that, when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features not shared with Microchiroptera. One example is that the brains of megabats show a number of advanced characteristics that link them to primates. Although recent genetic studies strongly support the monophyly of bats,[15] debate continues as to the meaning of available genetic and morphological evidence.[16]
Genetic Evidence indicates megabats originated during the early Eocene and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats.

Consequently, two new suborders based on molecular data have been proposed. The new suborder Yinpterochiroptera includes the Pteropodidae or megabat family, as well as the Rhinolophidae, Hipposideridae, Craseonycteridae, Megadermatidae, and Rhinopomatidae families[17] The new suborder Yangochiroptera includes all the remaining families of bats (all of which use laryngeal echolocation).
These two new suborders are strongly supported by statistical tests. Teeling (2005) found 100% bootstrap support in all maximum likelihood analyses for the division of Chiroptera into these two modified suborders. This conclusion is further supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera.[17] The chiropteran phylogeny based on molecular evidence is controversial because microbat paraphyly implies one of two seemingly unlikely hypotheses occurred.

The first suggests laryngeal echolocation Evolved twice in Chiroptera, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids.[18][19] The second proposes laryngeal echolocation had a single origin in Chiroptera, was subsequently lost in the family Pteropodidae (all megabats), and later evolved as a system of tongue-clicking in the genus Rousettus.[20]

Analyses of the sequence of the "vocalization" gene, FoxP2 were inconclusive as to whether laryngeal echolocation was secondarily lost in the pteropodids or independently gained in the echolocating lineages.[21] However, analyses of the "hearing" gene, Prestin seemed to favor the independent gain in echolocating species rather than a secondary loss in the pteropodids.[22]

In addition to Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, the names Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes have also been proposed for these suborders.[23][24] Under this new proposed nomenclature, the suborder Pteropodiformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Pteropus than the genus Vespertilio, while the suborder Vespertilioniformes includes all extant bat families more closely related to the genus Vespertilio than to the genus Pteropus.

Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats, since their small, delicate skeletons do not fossilize very well. However, a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early microchiropteran bat. Most of the oldest known, definitely identified bat fossils were already very similar to modern microbats. These fossils, Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Palaeochiropteryx and Hassianycteris, are from the early Eocene period, 52.5 million years ago.[14]
Archaeopteropus, formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now classified as a microchiropteran.
Bats were formerly grouped in the superorder Archonta along with the treeshrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and the primates, because of the apparent similarities between Megachiroptera and such mammals. Genetic studies have now placed bats in the superorder Laurasiatheria, along with carnivorans, pangolins, odd-toed ungulates, even-toed ungulates, and cetaceans.[1]

[Tree Fmily GRAPH]

Laurasiatheria is also posited to include several extinct orders and superorders:

Meridiungulata
Condylarthra
Dinocerata
Mesonychia
Creodonta​

The traditional classification of bats is:

Order Chiroptera
Suborder Megachiroptera (megabats)
Pteropodidae
Suborder Microchiroptera (microbats)
Superfamily Emballonuroidea
Emballonuridae (Sac-winged or sheath-tailed bats)
Superfamily Molossoidea
Molossidae (Free-tailed bats)
Superfamily Nataloidea
Furipteridae (Smoky bats)
Myzopodidae (Sucker-footed bats)
Natalidae (Funnel-eared bats)
Thyropteridae (Disk-winged bats)
Superfamily Noctilionoidea
Mormoopidae (Ghost-faced or moustached bats)
Mystacinidae (New Zealand short-tailed bats)
Noctilionidae (Bulldog bats or fisherman bats)
Phyllostomidae (Leaf-nosed bats)
Superfamily Rhinolophoidea
Megadermatidae (False vampires)
Nycteridae (Hollow-faced or slit-faced bats)
Rhinolophidae (Horseshoe bats)
Hipposideridae (Old World leaf-nosed bats)
Superfamily Rhinopomatoidea
Craseonycteridae (Bumblebee bat or Kitti's hog-nosed bat)
Rhinopomatidae (Mouse-tailed bats)
Superfamily Vespertilionoidea
Vespertilionidae (Vesper bats or evening bats)
Antrozoidae (Pallid bat and Van Gelder's bat)​

Megabats primarily eat fruit or nectar. In New Guinea, they are likely to have evolved for some time in the absence of microbats. This has resulted in some smaller megabats of the genus Nyctimene becoming (partly) insectivorous to fill the vacant microbat ecological niche. Furthermore, some evidence indicates that the fruit bat genus Pteralopex from the Solomon Islands, and its close relative Mirimiri from Fiji, have evolved to fill some niches that were open because there are no nonvolant or nonflying mammals on those islands.

Fossil bats

Fossilized remains of bats are few, as they are terrestrial and light-boned. Only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level.[25] Fossil remains of an Eocene bat, Icaronycteris, were found in 1960.
Another Eocene bat, Onychonycteris finneyi, was found in the 52-million-year-old Green River Formation in Wyoming, United States, in 2003.[26][27]
This Intermediate Fossil has helped to resolve a long-standing disagreement regarding whether flight or echolocation developed first in bats.
It had characteristics indicating it could fly, yet the well-preserved skeleton showed the cochlea of the inner ear lacked development needed to support the greater hearing abilities used by modern echolocating bats.
This provided evidence flight in bats developed well before echolocation. The team that found the remains of O. finneyi recognized it lacked ear and throat features present not only in echolocating bats today, but also in other known prehistoric species.
The appearance and flight movement of bats 52.5 million years ago were different from those of bats today.
Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had short, broad wings, suggesting it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides while in the air.
Such physical characteristics suggest this bat did not fly as much as modern bats do, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its waking day climbing or hanging on the branches of trees.[28]
-

THAT'S how Bats evolved.
The reason you don't believe in evolution is you are Willfully Ignorant. (and to some degree unwillfully)
`

Interesting that after all that 'pretend,' we obviate same with this:
"Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats,..."



Next.

 

[rdean]

Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.

Pssst....deanie.....this topic is way over your head.

So sorry to have distracted your attention from the 24-hour cartoon network.

 

[jwoodie]

Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems. This thread is a perfect example: Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them. I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.

 

[jwoodie]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. It's our #2 and #2 and #13 in chimps. So whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.. I mean, that's just as feasible. I'd consider giving us intelligence and evidence pointing one way but not really meaning it as kind of a dick move, but God works in mysterious ways.

Ironically, your thesis only works in an Adam and Eve scenario. How else did two chromosomes fuse, Dr. Frankenstein?

 

[rdean]

Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.

Pssst....deanie.....this topic is way over your head.

So sorry to have distracted your attention from the 24-hour cartoon network.

It's a sad state of affairs when you can learn more about science from the Cartoon Network than you can from listening to Right Wingnut Master Debators.

 

[Steven_R]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. It's our #2 and #2 and #13 in chimps. So whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.. I mean, that's just as feasible. I'd consider giving us intelligence and evidence pointing one way but not really meaning it as kind of a dick move, but God works in mysterious ways.

Ironically, your thesis only works in an Adam and Eve scenario. How else did two chromosomes fuse, Dr. Frankenstein?

Well, I'm convinced. Magical Sky Daddy did it.

 

[Steven_R]

Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems. This thread is a perfect example: Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them. I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.

I suspect you don't read many scientific journals if you think there is no dissent or infighting. Evolution is accepted, but the mechanisms are up for debate. I understand that among the cdesign proponentists there can be no dissent, after all the Big Book of Bronze Age Mythology by Magical Sky Daddy is what it is and your talking points are pre-approved by the DiscoTute, but among scientists there is plenty of infighting, only without the burning of witches.