Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci-News: Moths Produce Ultrasonic Defensive Sounds to Fend Off Bat Predators

Categories
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists from Boise State University and elsewhere have tested 252 genera from most families of large-bodied moths. Their results show that ultrasound-producing moths are far more widespread than previously thought, adding three new sound-producing organs, eight new subfamilies and potentially thousands of species to the roster.

A molecular phylogeny of Lepidoptera indicating antipredator ultrasound production across the order. Image credit: Barber et al., doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117485119.

Bats pierce the shadows with ultrasonic pulses that enable them to construct an auditory map of their surroundings, which is bad news for moths, one of their favorite foods.

However, not all moths are defenseless prey. Some emit ultrasonic signals of their own that startle bats into breaking off pursuit.

Many moths that contain bitter toxins avoid capture altogether by producing distinct ultrasounds that alert bats to their foul taste. Others conceal themselves in a shroud of sonar-jamming static that makes them hard to find with bat echolocation.

While effective, these types of auditory defense mechanisms in moths are considered relatively rare, known only in tiger moths, hawk moths and a single species of geometrid moth.

“It’s not just tiger moths and hawk moths that are doing this,” said Dr. Akito Kawahara, a researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

“There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.”

In the same way that non-toxic butterflies mimic the colors and wing patterns of less savory species, moths that lack the benefit of built-in toxins can copy the pitch and timbre of genuinely unappetizing relatives.

These ultrasonic warning systems seem so useful for evading bats that they’ve evolved independently in moths on multiple separate occasions.

In each case, moths transformed a different part of their bodies into finely tuned organic instruments.

[I’ve put these quotes from the article in bold to highlight the juxtaposition of “evolved independently” and “finely tuned organic instruments.” Fine-tuning is, of course, often associated with intelligent design, rather than unguided natural processes.]

See the full article in Sci-News.

Comments
Yes, Carol Boggs also says "two to three million".Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Watch the video starting where I specified. It will appear about 1 1/2 minutes later. They also repeat it near the end. I listed a time somewhat before so as to allow one to get used to them talking about speciation.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Listen to Peter Grant at 18.00. He definitely says "two to three million years"Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
"Thirty-two" or "three to two", Jerry?Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
BTW, thanks to Jerry for providing the link! Very informative and great to hear things from the horse's mouth.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Peter and Rosemary Grant at Stanford. Start at 1:10 for comment about 32 million years.
The remark as I hear it is "finch radiation started two to three million years ago."Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Most ironical statement of Year?
It’s hard to see it as other than wishful thinking. Where explanations fail, the honest response is to admit ignorance.
Tell me how it wasn't an honest comment. This response to my long comment sounds like someone in denial about the logic and evidence available about the Evolution debate. Peter and Rosemary Grant at Stanford. Start at 1:10 for comment about 32 million years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcVY__T3Ho aside: I believe the pretense that a polite but honest debate was desired was only a pretense and was actually an attempt to be one sided which has obviously failed.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
A long comment from 13 years ago. Read if you want.
Well, I did. It's hard to see it as other than wishful thinking. Where explanations fail, the honest response is to admit ignorance. The idea that "Intelligent Designers" did something undetectable at some unspecified moment is not an explanation for anything.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
I’ve tried searching for the quote and am unable to find it.
I will search for it. It's in a YouTube video from all the presentations made at that conference. The interesting thing was the complete lack of response or should I say cluelessness of the panel to this statement.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Jerry, regarding your question, I answered it. All DNA sequences synthesized in vitro will produce protein sequences. If you meant to ask a different question, you should make it clear.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
In Critiquing Dembski, Jason Rosenhouse Prioritizes Imagination over Reality Brian Miller - July 28, 2022, Excerpt: Douglas Axe demonstrated for the beta-lactamase enzyme that the upper bound for the enzyme’s larger domain is 1 functional sequence in every 10^77 randomly selected ones. Rosenhouse attempts to discredit this estimate by citing Arthur Hunt’s critique, but he fails to acknowledge that Axe and others showed that such negative assessments reflect misunderstandings of his research and the technical literature (here, here, here, here). https://evolutionnews.org/2022/07/in-critiquing-dembski-jason-rosenhouse-prioritizes-imagination-over-reality/ Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB - Doug Axe https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310918874/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004 Adam and the Genome and Doug Axe’s Research on the Evolution of New Protein Folds - March 7, 2018 https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/adam-and-the-genome-and-doug-axes-research-on-the-evolution-of-new-protein-folds/ Losing the Forest by Fixating on the Trees — A Response to Venema’s Critique of Undeniable - Douglas Axe - February 6, 2018 https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/losing-the-forest-by-fixating-on-the-trees-a-response-to-venemas-critique-of-undeniable/ Protein Folding and the Four Horsemen of the Axocalypse - Brian Miller - April 12, 2018 https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/protein-folding-and-the-four-horsemen-of-the-axocalypse/
bornagain77
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
A long comment from 13 years ago. Read if you want. There are two choices for any phenomenon, both of them rather broad. One is that certain things happened naturally, the mechanism to be discovered. The second is that these things were produced through intelligent input. And by the way a lot of what may be considered natural, could be the result of a designed process allowed to proceed naturally. For some simple examples, pearl farmers seed their shell fish with an irritant and the let nature do the rest and beavers dam the course of a river and the ensuing wetlands provide an enhanced habitat for the beavers and other animals and plants. But in general it is mainly one or the other but what appears to be natural could also be great design. There are no other choices unless you want to proffer some. As I said these are rather broad categories. It is almost impossible to eliminate the intelligent input option. It is not a theory such as gravity, the Standard Model, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Kinetic theory of Gases, Information theory or Plate Tectonics etc yet people keep on asking for some hypotheses and predictions. ID is simply that intelligence is an input at some time in the history of being, the universe, the world, life etc. Some hypothesize that it was in the design of the universe itself and the initial conditions and subsequent boundary conditions of the Big Bang were such fantastic design that it enables natural processes to produce everything we see including this very rare planet, the origin of life and the evolutionary progression through subsequent natural consequences. Some hypothesize that the input was ongoing and there were various events that reflect an intelligent input. This input could have been minimal and then natural processes were allowed to do the rest. To disprove an intelligent input, one has to show natural processes at every turn. It is a difficult job. All ID has to do is show that naturalistic processes fail at some point and that an intelligent input is more reasonable. They only need one point. That is the nature of the discussion. It seems unfair to some who whine that ID is unfalsifiable. But that is it. Because ID is more of a logic process and not a specific scientific theory it does not have the usual domain of interest such as plate tectonics, cosmology or even evolution. After all an intelligence could create life or modify a genome to guide life maybe only once and that is not the making of some theory. To create life or modify it is not too hard to understand as it appears to be within human capability in the near future. Thus, the possibility of an intelligence creating and modifying life is not an issue. It is whether it ever happened or not that is at issue. If we had a video camera at the time of an intelligent input, we could settle it once and for all but such an event does not exist and we have had people here and at other places demanding such evidence. Short of this something else has to be done. We have observed a lot of phenomena through out history that could possibly be explained by an intelligent input and the challenge for science is to verify if there may be a natural cause for each. For most of history it was thought that God was personally responsible for most, much, or a lot of these phenomena. From Zeus throwing lightning bolts in anger and the various gods determining the fates of various personalities such as Odysseus to Newton’s hypothesis that God sent comets to stabilize the orbits of the planets. Newton’s laws and then LaPlace’s theory of the heavens seemed to show that all was under control of natural laws. So it was assumed from then on by many that everything must be under control of natural laws. We have no need for Zeus and lightning bolts and for comets stabilizing orbits. And we get the conventional wisdom that everything is due to natural laws and chance and it is only a matter of time before science gets around to explaining it. And science has a good track record. But what is glaringly obvious is that science has some spectacular failures in one particular area. So while science continues to chalk up win after win there seems to be one opponent which gets the better of it every time. Consequently, one has to reevaluate the conventional wisdom and maybe consider an alternative to natural processes. ID only exists because science loses most of the time to the heavy weights in this one area, namely life. It does wonderfully well in some important areas of life, specifically medicine, food production and genetics but it is badly outperformed by the problems in the areas of macro evolution and origin of life. Why this failure here? Is there an alternative to naturalistic processes in these two domains. Is intelligence an explanation? Hence, every time science fails in these areas it adds credence to the alternative. At this moment in the realm of logic and reason both alternatives exist. Which is more feasible? Every time we see the failure of one alternative it raises the possibility of the other. After all it is possible. We just cannot identify the intelligence. So each failure for a natural pathway raises the probability of the alternative, namely an intelligent input. And the rationale for an intelligent input has been bolstered by the knowledge that what underlies life is different from every other area of nature, specifically information. Information is not present in any other area of nature except life.??Now this game of supporting the ID premise is played two ways and both use the tools of science, logic and reason. One shows that time after time that certain naturalistic processes have failed. The second way is to show why naturalistic processes have failed. Both use science and point to the inadequacy of natural processes. There is a third way which one group says must be present before an intelligent input can be accepted and that is evidence for the specific event where there was an input of intelligence. The first way above is to challenge each natural explanation for the phenomenon as flawed and show why the explanation could not have possibly happened. This is the frequent challenges to Darwinian macro evolution we have seen not only by the ID people but also by the anti ID people as well as the creationists. It is represented here on this site and in the academic and popular literature by the lack of any coherent demonstration that Darwinian macro evolution ever took place. Now macro evolution did take place and no one is denying that here but there is no evidence for it happening by Darwinian processes or any other known natural processes. All the processes of science are brought to bear in this examination so to declare it non scientific is ludicrous. The second way is to use observations of the world and then to complement these observations with some form of analysis, mainly probability, and some understanding of natural processes to illustrate why the failure of naturalistic processes is not only reasonable but to be expected. To this end a couple of different approaches are in their infancy but have showed some reasonable results. One is being developed by Behe and is showing that there does not exist the probabilistic resources to create the changes needed in macro evolution. Behe’s two books, Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution, are aimed at this objective. Namely, that life is extremely complicated and naturalistic processes seem unable to climb the hurdles necessary to produce macro evolution. Another is being done by Dembski and others trying to show something similar using mathematical and probabilistic approaches to show that reaching the complexity necessary for life is beyond the probabilistic resources of the universe. So in lots of way the two approaches are similar but using different methodologies to attack the same problem. To argue that this is not science is also ludicrous. One may argue that the techniques by these scientists are flawed or that the interpretation of the results are invalid but to say that they are not using science is absurd. Now the naturalists respond with their challenges. The best challenge would always be to show that the phenomena probably arose by naturalistic means but this is rarely done because there seems to be little evidence supporting any particular mechanism. The main challenge is to use something similar to what I described above as the first approach, namely that the intelligent input scenario is flawed just as ID people point out that each naturalistic input is flawed. The creator could not be omniscient, or no one would design such an imperfect system or make these childish mistakes etc. They also point to science’s track record in other areas and that the work on the problem is just getting started etc. So we have two broad approaches and any evidence in one camp reduces the likelihood of the other. It is one that won’t be solved any time soon but to assume your side is right a priori is ridiculous. ID is the more reasonable side as far as I can see. They are willing to accept naturalistic explanations when it is demonstrated but are not willing to accept an arbitrary demand of absolute dismissiveness for intelligent inputs that is imposed by the naturalists. One side is flexible and reasonable while the other side is intransigent and unmoving.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
All this published from Alan Fox confirms the ID general hypothesis. It seems more nits than substance. For example, I asked for the origin of proteins and get that any sequence will produce proteins. An admission that there are no examples. The interesting thing is the complete absence of a defense for any naturalized mechanism for Evolution. Nothing has changed over the years as the long comment following made 13 years ago points out.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Jerry:
The Grants were invited to give a presentation at Stanford on the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. They presented on their work with finches. As part of this presentation, discussion of just what was a species took place. During this, this statement was made.
I've tried searching for the quote and am unable to find it. Do you have a link? It seems at complete odds with everything else that turns up when I google. for instance: https://idw-online.de/en/news685650Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Jerry:
I have not read Behe’s more recent book, “Darwin Devolves,” but after reading the reviews maybe I will, especially focusing on the evidence of improbability of random variations creating anything.
Josh Swamidass at Panda's ThumbAlan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Jerry:
To be polite, how is it [Axe's work on protein folding] flawed?
Arthur Hunt at Panda's Thumb Mikkel Rasmussen at The Skeptical ZoneAlan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Do you have an examples of gene sequences arising that produce proteins?
The genetic code has no nonsense codons. Any DNA sequence will translate into a protein sequence. As there are three stop codons, random sequences will, on average, produce sequences of 60 odd aa's.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Jerry:
Where’s the evidence for the origin of these incredibly unlikely gene sequences in the 200 million data base? How did they happen?
Years ago, I don't know if you remember Telic Thoughts and Mike Gene, I was having a discussion there about the probability of protein sequences. The mistake that is so often made here and elsewhere (Axe makes it too) is to conflate amino-acid sequences in proteins with functionality in proteins. The theoretical number of proteins of any particular number of aa's is the number of amino-acids found in proteins (20 for most species) raised to the power of the number of aa's in the protein sequence. The number becomes rapidly becomes enormous as sequence length increases. The ID argument often is how rare any particular sequence is. But it assumes only the sequence in question is functional, one needle in a haystack, when in fact we've no idea how much functionality lurks in unsynthesized sequences.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Where did you get your 32 million years from
From Rosemary Grant's mouth with Peter at her side. The Grants were invited to give a presentation at Stanford on the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. They presented on their work with finches. As part of this presentation, discussion of just what was a species took place. During this, this statement was made.
considered in the mainstream to be, at the politest, flawed
To be polite, how is it flawed? Do you have an examples of gene sequences arising that produce proteins? Given that there are about 200 million, one would think a few examples would be available.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Jerry:
Similarly, Doug Axe does the same for proteins. The data base referred to above refers to 200 million proteins. This represents an extremely small subset of amino acid combinations. How were the coding sequences for these proteins selected?
Now I am quite familiar with Axe and the criticisms of his protein-folding approach. It is considered in the mainstream to be, at the politest, flawed.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Jerry:
Behe’s Edge of Evolution includes extensive discussion of what is feasible and what is not feasible probability wise in terms of mutations arising and leading to lasting change in genomes. Now this is mainly about genetics not Evolution. However, the small chance anything will happen genetically to permanently change the genome (it does happen rarely) means the chances of the species being changed are incredibly low. The Grants argued it would take 32 million years to get a new finch species. Not very promising for significant Evolution of anything. And that does not include any new gene sequences for new proteins being developed.
There are three basic processes occurring under evolutionary theory: adaptation (change within a population induced by mutations and selection in the niche environment), speciation (separation from one population, often but not always geographical, where evolutionary change continues in two separate populations in two separate niches), extinction (where a population dies out often due to over-rapid niche change or niche destruction). That said, I'm not well-versed in the details of Peter and Rosemary Grant's long-running studies on Galapagos finches. I wonder if you are. Where did you get your 32 million years from? Looking at papers on Galapagos ground finches, I see one abstract mentions:
All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.
here.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
Jerry, ID is interdisciplinary, as is say environmental science, however it has key themes and a frame that are observation based and make solidly empirically warranted inferences, arguments and conclusions. Later, still in transition though back at home after putting four in the ground. The fifth was grounded some time ago. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
AF, oh yes you do know, starting with the FSCO/I in your objection. You are in ideological denial and that is the root of the incoherence you project to me. Later. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Here's a comment I made 13 years ago
What is evolving is an understanding of what ID always was. As I have said before there is no experiment that ID would not do that materialist science does. It would actually do a lot more so ID expands the horizon of science. I have not met one anti ID person here who engages ID on substance. ID is science based and is willing to consider any empirical data presented to it. But that is not what happens here. Instead we get comments lamenting how backward or stupid we are. How boring. I do wish the anti ID people would learn some science.
That is so obviously true. So how can ID be a science stopper or deny anything that so called true science has discovered. It doesn't. The best example of this is what has been proposed to solve the Evolution issue once and for all. See #23 above which is conveniently avoided by any anti ID person. You would think they would be all over it to show just how their ideas have played out over history. But no.jerry
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
AF, you full well know that intelligently directed configuration routinely produces FSCO/I beyond 750 +/- bits, and you yourself are an example.
I know no such thing, KF. Though I do know your statement is incoherent. You have no way of calculating the "quantity" you refer to as FSCO/I (which is unique to you - nobody else takes it or you seriously), there's no consensus among ID proponents as to what information is quantitatively, let alone any way to calculate it for any object or system. You're fond of making challenges, especially ones for which you are unable to supply any answer. Here's my challenge. Calculate the FSCO/i of something, anything, and show your work.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
ET, worse D/RNA is string data structure, code bearing technology. Code which in key part has AA chain assembly instructions towards proteins, as algorithms with start, extend [ways 1 to 20], stop. Language, goal directed process, processing logic and tech, deep knowledge of polymer science, and more, especially when we reckon with cosmological fine tuning that sets all of that up. None of this is new, none of it would be controversial absent ideological impositions. We can no longer allow ourselves to be diffident in the face of willful ignorance -- at best. KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
More evidence for ID: The genetic code involves a coded information processing system in which mRNA codons REPRESNT amino acids. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn't even any way to test the claim that nature can do it. Again, science say that we can dismiss such claims. However, there is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. So, using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton's 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code is intelligently designed. Science 101. Let Alan and JVL flail away and demonstrate that they don't understand science.ET
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
For Alan Fox to choke on: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems All bacterial flagella have been shown to be irreducibly complex. There isn't any evidence that nature produced any of them. There isn't even any way to test the claim that nature produced any of them. Science says we can dismiss that claim. It must suck to be Alan and JVL. Science has given them all of the power to refute ID and yet all they can do is lie, bluff, misrepresent and equivocate! ID exists because of their failure to support their own position's asinine claims.ET
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
ID has no explanations. It starts and ends with “Evolution has no explanation for this…”
Pure stupidity or worse- willful ignorance. ID is not anti-evolution. So, Alan lies when he claims "It starts and ends with “Evolution has no explanation for this""- You are pathetic, Alan. The design inference is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships. It has the same explanatory power as archaeology and forensic science. Determining something was the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it tells us blind and mindless processes didn't do it. Next it is a clue of purpose. That an intelligent agency was there and did something. It directs our investigation of the phenomena. Obviously, Alan has never conducted an investigation in his life.ET
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
JVL:
What kind of present day experiments can support intelligent design? NOT, what kind of experiments can disprove unguided evolution; what kind of experiments can be done which support intelligent design?
Still clueless. Again, for the learning impaired: ALL design inferences must first eliminate chance and necessity, ie nature, operating freely. That is mandated by Newton, Occam and parsimony. Only the scientifically illiterate can't grasp that. Enter JVL and all evos. That said, any experiment which elucidates IC, CSI or SC, support ID. As Dr. Behe said:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
ET
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
1 19 20 21 22 23

Leave a Reply