Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Alan Fox:
Though ID proponents ought to have a go. The tools exist. Write your sequence. Predict its functional capabilities. Synthesize and confirm. ID becomes science!
That doesn't have anything to do with ID. And ID has already become science because, unlike evolution by blind and mindless processes, ID is supported by the evidence and can be tested.ET
July 29, 2022
July
07
Jul
29
29
2022
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
could this be the answer to nearly every question in biology relevant to species differences?
Maybe this should have its own OP? Since this, is off topic, there will be more opportunities to discuss this. Raises a lot of questions though. How did 200 million proteins arise when just one appearing is problematic? Why do some moths have the necessary proteins while others don’t? How did some moth species arise with the right proteins while others didn’t? Would it destroy the concept of common descent or support it?
ID becomes science!
You fail to understand what ID is. ID takes what ever science is being conducted and on certain occasions adds a new logical layer of analysis to the process. In other words it enhances the scientific process by making it more logically rigorous when appropriate. For most of science this additional layer is not necessary but for a few instances it is. Again, off topic but maybe on an appropriate thread.jerry
July 29, 2022
July
07
Jul
29
29
2022
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Aside: could this be the answer to nearly every question in biology relevant to species differences?
It's a step in that direction. What appears to be happening here is AI modelling algorithms predicting (apparently accurately) the quaternary structure of proteins from their amino-acid sequences. Whilst that is pretty mind-blowing, it is far from being able to construct functional proteins by choosing sequences. I can conceive of that process happening but I doubt it is going to happen soon. It will remain impossible to predict the functional properties of a novel protein sequence in advance for the foreseeable future, I predict. Though ID proponents ought to have a go. The tools exist. Write your sequence. Predict its functional capabilities. Synthesize and confirm. ID becomes science!Alan Fox
July 29, 2022
July
07
Jul
29
29
2022
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Somewhat off topic but a new database is being developed of every possible protein in existence. Using this database of 200 million proteins, it should be possible to identify the proteins responsible for Interfering in bat ultrasound location. Why do some moths have them while others do not?
The entire protein universe’: AI predicts shape of nearly every known protein
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02083-2 Aside: could this be the answer to nearly every question in biology relevant to species differences?jerry
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
Sev "You raise a legitimate question." I thought it was a rhetorical question. Silly me....chuckdarwin
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Seversky@7 As Caspian points out, your question is really an unscientific one that is looking for moral or spiritual or theological, not scientific, answers. Not being a theological movement or system, ID doesn't look for theological answers, just for more scientific evidence to add to the boatload that has already been accumulated, that there somehow was a designer or designers. A scientific and teleological quest. Here's a question for you. What did Darwinism predict? Well, maybe the gratuitous assumption that it simply must have been RM&NS that produced the observed distribution of several lines that developed ultrasonic deception/masking. This assumption not even elaborated by vague "just so" stories, much less any detailed tracing of the supposed long process minute step by minute step, and explaining exactly how such a process could have built up probably irreducibly complex systems especially in the time allowed by the fossil record (that's the good old "waiting time" problem). The old saying "the Devil is in the details" applies here - just so stories are no good without the nitty gritty details. Of course not even a shred of evidence, and of course no mathematical analysis. Does this sound like real science?doubter
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 7: "Why would the Designer create bats with sonar to find moths to eat and then moths with ultrasound “jammers” to defeat bats sonar? Does he get some perverse pleasure watching the duel between the two species?" You raise a legitimate question, but it's a theological question (not a scientific question), and as such, it would have a theological answer. It sounds like you expect earth to be like heaven, if the God of the Bible is real. I think the Bible sufficiently answers why that is presently not the case. Of course, there's far more to the story. Would you like to discuss it further?Caspian
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
CD at 12, Then you should contact the proper authorities and let them know. Something tells me that God does not run online gambling.relatd
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Seversky/7 Someone needs to let God know that online gambling is illegal in most states......chuckdarwin
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Seversky at 10, Still watching the original Star Trek? Me too.relatd
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Well, it sounds like moths have been fitted with "shields" which they can raise whenever they pick up a bat coming in to attack.Seversky
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Seversky at 7, Ah, I see you are using the scholarly Star Trek Argument. It's been falsified.relatd
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Does he get some perverse pleasure watching the duel between the two species
Not two but thousands. How would you design an ecology? Besides the universe and Earth, ecologies are one of the wonders of design as thousand of off setting characteristics balance each other to provide stability. Quite a trick!!!jerry
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Why would the Designer create bats with sonar to find moths to eat and then moths with ultrasound "jammers" to defeat bats sonar? Does he get some perverse pleasure watching the duel between the two species? Is he betting quatloos on who will win in each encounter?Seversky
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
belfast @2
“[more widespread] than previously thought”
"other than previously thought" should become a Darwinian trademark ... Basically all recent Darwinian papers start with "... than thought" ... I asked this before, but why are Darwinists so trustworthy ??? These guys seem to be always wrong ... If Darwinists don't like the "...than thought" slogan, they can choose one of these (all from Darwinian papers): "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” "... in contrast to the decades-long dogma ..." “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….”martin_r
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT
If the warning evolved, why are there moths. They should have all been eaten, unless they always had them. Another score for design. That makes millions in favor of design and 0 in favor of Darwin. Design is witnessed everywhere. Darwin never has. When the evidence is overwhelming, logic dictates design.BobRyan
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
ID predicts that anything has a function even if we know about it or not(vestigial organs,"junk" DNA) That functionality can be detected even by an atheist mind , except atheist assign that function to random chance. :) Random chance vs God compete in atheist mind (that itself must be produced by the same magical random chance). Nobody observed or tested how matter produce life/code/complex functional systems but is declared "scientific" truth by atheists . "Random chance" is "we don't know how " :lol: Same thing with "random mutation" from darwinism. Atheists are the ones who believe that "we don't know how but certainly was no God" is a scientific answer. You are free to believe whatever you want but don't say it's science .Lieutenant Commander Data
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
It's fascinating research. So, what did ID predict about ultrasound-emitting moths?Seversky
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
“than previously thought” probably has a grammalogue in shorthand systems because it is such a common phrase, but why is is such a recurring line? There may be several reasons; a code word to dupe an editor into publishing; justifiable modest self-praise for the authors’ expansion of knowledge; or possibly a necessary outcome of bankrupt Darwinian paradigm forecasting that there once were moths with no defence mechanisms. There should be a legitimate reason for this ubiquitous phrase.Belfast
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Well, you see, when insects were fish, they gave out ultrasonic... uh. OK. The above makes no sense from a 'it just happened through blind, unguided chance' point of view. “There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.” Who are these people? Teenagers? The study of moths only began a few weeks ago?relatd
July 27, 2022
July
07
Jul
27
27
2022
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
1 21 22 23

Leave a Reply