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
JVL, doubling down on side tracks. The central question is answered. KFkairosfocus
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
AF, bluster. It is becoming clear you have nothing of substance but are determined to support the party of business as usual, even as the cliff's edge approaches. Let the observation stand, in comments where you object to FSCO/I you are compelled to produce FSCO/I in the form of complex text in ascii coded English. Thus, your objections are self referential and incoherent. KFkairosfocus
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: you are precisely focussing on the secondary and tangential, in evasion and/or frustration of what is truly primary, focal, pivotal, decisive. In governance, that suggests intent to perpetuate a status quo, business as usual agenda that has failed and emits signs of crisis but which, by virtue of being BAU reflects the interests of the entrenched. The solution is to refer to the pivotal and to recognise its priority. Refusal to do so implies lock-in to BAU on the road to a cliff’s edge Incredible. I'm trying to see if a method proposed by one of the main-stays of ID actually works and gives results different from the old standard and you, clearly not understanding what I am doing or the mathematics involved, just want to blow it off. YOU'RE the one trying to perpetuate a business as usual view: we don't need some new, fancy, dancy, maybe better, maybe more accurate method. We'll just keep doin' what we're doin'. It's just astonishing: in 2005 Dr Dembski proposed a new, extended, refined method for detected specified complexity, one that might even give lower thresholds than the 500-bit standard (as I think I've shown) but, EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, a method that could be applied to events or patterns BELOW the 500-bit requirement. And what happened? No one in the ID community paid any attention. No one tried to use it. I suspect most didn't have a clue as to how to do the math. You certainly didn't. So, you broke it apart, replaced the scary bits with new things and, as it turns out, you can't even evaluate your new things for a very simple case. We know this because I've asked you over and over and over again to tell us what your K2 and I(T) come out to be for a very specific, easy to understand example. And you cannot do that. Not only couldn't you evaluate Dr Dembski's original but you can't even evaluate your replacement! What was the point of you making those replacements if you still can't evaluate the new terms? To make yourself look math-y? To fling about some expressions so that people thought you knew something when you didn't really? Did you fool yourself into thinking you got it and since no one ever asked you what values your terms took on for a particular example you thought: I guess my work must be okay? Dr Dembski tried to come up with a better, more objective, more flexible metric that could be applied to a lot more cases and no one cared. You say you understood it, you say you made some simplifying substitutions but I don't think you can even evaluate those. But, you can still prove me wrong, easily. You can tell me what numerical values your K2 and I(T) terms are for the very particular case of flipping a fair coin 400 times and getting 400 tails. Even if you can't do that will you either find a mistake in my work or agree that Dr Dembski's metric seems to indicate a threshold of 401 flips getting all tails for specified complexity to definitely be present? No more insults or waving your hand about saying the same thing you've been saying for years and years. I'm not contending your core contention; I'm trying to see if there's a better way of testing your core contention!! Can you evaluate your own expression? Is my work correct? And if you can't answer those questions then be mature enough to admit it.JVL
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
The ABU fishing reel? Not to pry, but do you suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder?Alan Fox
August 15, 2022
August
08
Aug
15
15
2022
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
I know that you can produce a lot of words in comments. What I don't see is any ability to measure information in any meaningful way.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
AF, you know about Kolmogorov complexity. That gives general results even that bastion Wikipedia is forced to acknowledge. You know full well that an analysis on alphanumeric strings is WLOG, as a compact description language can describe any functional structure, witness AutoCAD. Further, you full well know what you lie yet again to push a strawman, functional specificity of organisation is observed, info carrying capacity and redundancy estimation rest on observation and information theory, giving values, all of which is commonplace in an information age as you full well know but choose rhetorical stunts over acknowledgement. But, of course you already tried to mock and sidestep an illustrative example, an ABU 6500 C3 reel. You know or can know that such extends to process-flow networks including metabolic networks and that a von Neumann self replicator integrated with a metabolic network is significant additional functionally specific complexity. You know that coded algorithms and execution machinery are facets of protein synthesis, part of the metabolic process-flow network. Your cynical rhetoric of hyperskepticism fails. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
AF, you are again composing ascii text, complex messages in English — that is a sufficient specification for our purposes — thus exhibiting cases of FSCO/I and of the known, observed cause of FSCO/I...
OK. So you claim to be able to measure something about a particular human language (English) when recorded in Latin text. Can your method establish whether a piece of text in a language unknown to you (or written in code) contains information? Had Bletchley use of your method, maybe they wouldn't have needed Colossus. This is a complete distraction.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
JVL, you are precisely focussing on the secondary and tangential, in evasion and/or frustration of what is truly primary, focal, pivotal, decisive. In governance, that suggests intent to perpetuate a status quo, business as usual agenda that has failed and emits signs of crisis but which, by virtue of being BAU reflects the interests of the entrenched. The solution is to refer to the pivotal and to recognise its priority. Refusal to do so implies lock-in to BAU on the road to a cliff's edge. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
PPS, to translate into more familiar terms, on the bare ascii character being 7 bits, 500/ 1,000 bits is 72/ 143 ascii characters.kairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: assume for argument, that Dembski is wrong Regarding his new metric? Okay . . . and I do not know how to calculate values for the second term of the threshold. In which case you wouldn't know if his metric Is incorrect . . . That would make utterly no difference to the main point, that information is expressible on neg log prob, and that functional information will have redundancies that reduce the actual conveyed info below capacity [channel capacity being the classical case]. Look, I am specifically looking at Dr Dembski's metric and seeing how it compares with other measures. I HAVEN'T been debating the idea if any of the metrics or thresholds make sense or work! You keep wanting to argue the general case which is not what I'm arguing about. I don't understand why you can't get that through your head!! In fact, by trying to use Dr Dembski's metric you might say I am tacitly supporting the idea that design exists and is detectable via mathematical means. Perhaps you should actually think about what I've been asking and doing. Dr Dembski came up with his revised and extended metric in 2005 and I never see anyone using it so why not try and use it and see what results it gives and compare those results with those given by other measures. So, AGAIN: I got a different threshold for flipping a coin and getting tails trying to honestly use the metric Dr Dembski elucidated and explained. Do you agree that for that particular case and event the specified complexity threshold is 401 flips? Yes or no?JVL
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
JVL, assume for argument, that Dembski is wrong and I do not know how to calculate values for the second term of the threshold. That would make utterly no difference to the main point, that information is expressible on neg log prob, and that functional information will have redundancies that reduce the actual conveyed info below capacity [channel capacity being the classical case]. Further, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is an observable, as we both know. Where, complexity beyond a reasonable threshold is such that blind search approaches will be frustrated by the lack of search resources relative to the configuration space of possibilities. Where, 500 - 1,000 bits is a reasonable threshold for the sol system then the observed cosmos. The only actually observed cosmos. In that context, we have cases for Oo life and body plans that are so far beyond threshold, 100 - 1,000 kbases to 10 - 100+ million bases for genome scale, that redundancy manifestly will not take us below 500 - 1,000 bits. Where, manifestly too, 500 bounds 401 or 465 etc. We therefore have decisive evidence that life and body plans are designed, using a simple information beyond threshold metric. That is material, decisive, the main point. And it is detachable from whether WmAD or Durston et al are right or whether I can or cannot calculate. Therefore, evasion or sidestepping the main point is a red herring and strawman tactic, with all due respect. Such should cease. KF PS, resolving what is central allows for dealing with less central matters as just that, secondary. That is a well-known way to resolve deep rooted, highly polarised and often needless conflicts.kairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
AF, you are again composing ascii text, complex messages in English -- that is a sufficient specification for our purposes -- thus exhibiting cases of FSCO/I and of the known, observed cause of FSCO/I. Your continued hyperskepticism simply shows unwillingness to acknowledge blatant facts. You are obviously quite educated and that is more than enough to show that you must know your objections now show outright gaslighting. You confirm your negative credibility. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: you already have an adequate answer on the main issue, and have refused to acknowledge it. Why should I entertain a rhetorical game of endless tangents and objections where you are resisting something as simple as reduction of a logarithm? Because things change, standards tighten, new rules and metrics are found. You should always be interested in things being more refined and specific. Just like moving from Newton's theories to Einstein's. Sure, Newton's theory were perfectly good for almost everything, especially things in our everyday lives. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate and welcome extensions and refinements. As Dr Dembski said he was doing. Also, I'd like to know if you understand the mathematics involved in Dr Dembski's metric. I do understand it which is why I can calculate it. So, again: I got a different threshold for flipping a coin and getting tails trying to honestly use the metric Dr Dembski elucidated and explained. Do you agree that for that particular case and event the specified complexity threshold is 401 flips? Yes or no?JVL
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
The answer is, ideological commitment to a self defeating scheme of thought, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers.
I just keep pointing out your FSCO/I has not moved from your imagination into something you can demonstrate. The obvious rebuttal is to demonstrate how it works. You seem very reluctant, nay evasive, on this point.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
...by merely objecting using an ascii coded text string expressing English sentences — a case of observable FSCO/I, you show the key self-referential, self-defeating flaw in your denialist rhetoric.
English sentences are written by people using English? Wow.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Your quarrel is with observables such as the very text of your objection, which shows functionally specific complex organisation, not order and not randomness, and by that functionally specific organisation and associated information, shows a sign of cause by intelligently directed configuration.
Sounds like assuming your conclusion.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
There’s the strawman, we are not looking at “unknown data sets.” We are first observing a characteristic pattern distinguishable from what is random or a simple repetitive pattern.
So you look at things that you know are designed and show that those things are designed? Useful!Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Funny, we have a sign that is tested on trillions of examples and is uniformly reliable.
One is enough. Show me!Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
AF, doubling down on the strawman: >>you cannot do what you claim.>> 1: Funny, we have a sign that is tested on trillions of examples and is uniformly reliable. >> You cannot use your “method” to make any distinction between unknown data sets and reliably show differences in information content. >> 2: There's the strawman, we are not looking at "unknown data sets." We are first observing a characteristic pattern distinguishable from what is random or a simple repetitive pattern. 3: As Orgel put it in 1973 -- and which you have refused to acknowledge:
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.
[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]
One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]
4: Then, Wicken:
‘Organized’systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions and/or repetitive stepwise procedures] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [ --> originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
5: Your quarrel is with observables such as the very text of your objection, which shows functionally specific complex organisation, not order and not randomness, and by that functionally specific organisation and associated information, shows a sign of cause by intelligently directed configuration. 6: So, by merely objecting using an ascii coded text string expressing English sentences -- a case of observable FSCO/I, you show the key self-referential, self-defeating flaw in your denialist rhetoric. >>All the peripheral waffle in the world>> 7: Obvious confession by projection, you know that you are playing a rhetoric game and are doubling down in the teeth of cogent correction. >>will not change that simple and glaringly obvious fact.>> 8: More doubling down, projecting while it is manifest that the very text of your objection manifests the phenomenon, FSCO/I you are trying to deny observability -- thus, factual existence -- for. That is how deranged your rhetoric is, it is outright gaslighting. 9: The issue is, why. The answer is, ideological commitment to a self defeating scheme of thought, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or its fellow travellers. Sadly revealing and intellectually self defeating. Negative credibility. KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
KF:
...why I have declared intellectual independence and refuse to hobble my knowledge on adequate and responsible warrant to your inveterate obfuscation, hyperskepticism and objectionism.
I've simply pointed out you cannot do what you claim. You cannot use your "method" to make any distinction between unknown data sets and reliably show differences in information content. All the peripheral waffle in the world will not change that simple and glaringly obvious fact.Alan Fox
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
JVL, you already have an adequate answer on the main issue, and have refused to acknowledge it. Why should I entertain a rhetorical game of endless tangents and objections where you are resisting something as simple as reduction of a logarithm? KFkairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
PPS, worse, the ideology, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers, is self referentially incoherent and self falsifying:
[JBSH, REFACTORED AS SKELETAL, AUGMENTED PROPOSITIONS:] "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
kairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Since you didn't answer this before I'll say it again: I got a different threshold for flipping a coin and getting tails trying to honestly use the metric Dr Dembski elucidated and explained. Do you agree that for that particular case and event the specified complexity threshold is 401 flips? Yes or no?JVL
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Alan, It has been amply demonstrated that you don't know what you are yapping about. You erect strawmen as if it means something. People can distinguish random number sets from sets that hold information. We do it every day! In biology we actually OBSERVE functionality. So, clearly you are just a clueless loser and whining crybaby.ET
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
AF, falsities as usual, sadly. First, you yet again set up a strawman despite repeated correction by several participants. Configuration based functionality is observed, it is a readily identifiable empirical datum noted since Orgel and Wicken in the 70's. The text of your objection is readily distinguished from gibberish that is plausibly random [exotic coding being even more complex], turar8lcrys75op764hi7r5o;gxcgk . . . . Repetitive simple patterns are non random but low information, asasasasas . . . for instance. You tried to mock the reference to an ABU 6500 C3 fishing reel as an example of an information-rich Wicken wiring diagram (itself a sign of fundamental refusal to acknowledge massively evident facts). That extends to say comparing the process-flow network of an oil refinery to the far more sophisticated and miniaturised case of cellular metabolism. You are also refusing to acknowledge that it is generally understood that there are no global decoder algorithms. You further refuse to recognise the per aspect explanatory filter, on an aspect of an entity, network or process, assess candidates, necessity vs chance vs intelligently directed configuration, per, low contingency on similar start points, necessity. High contingency but low functional specificity, chance. Functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information, design. And of course, further lurking is your refusal to acknowledge information carrying capacity from observed functionally specific information or organisation. Where, organisation is readily reducible to strings in a compact description language. Further to which, above, you were found trying to resist and deny a standard metric for information tied to probability, negative log probability, now essentially a century old and foundational to our information age. The problem is not with formulating or explaining this, or with correcting misunderstandings, in your case literally across years. Your problem, sadly, is ethical . . . insistent, patently ideologically motivated violation of key intellectual virtues: willful selective hyperskepticism compounded by disregard for truth, reason and fairness. You have made yourself a poster child example of why I have declared intellectual independence and refuse to hobble my knowledge on adequate and responsible warrant to your inveterate obfuscation, hyperskepticism and objectionism. KF PS, For those interested, kindly see https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/kairosfocus
August 14, 2022
August
08
Aug
14
14
2022
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
KF, It has been amply demonstrated that you are talking in non-sequiturs. Given any set of raw data, without additional information, you are (with your math manipulation) utterly unable to distinguish random number sets from sets that hold information.Alan Fox
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
F/N: Insofar as science seeks an accurate understanding of the world, identification and use of reliable signs of design is a significant contribution. And if instead science is reduced to propping up evolutionary materialistic scientism as an ideology, it is on its way to losing credibility. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
JVL, you continue to set up and knock over strawmen. If you were not familiar with the negative log probability metric, and how base 2 yields bits, then you were and by refusal to acknowledge still are, not in a position to make substantial remarks. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Hi Bill, Are you on an R & R break from Peaceful Science?Alan Fox
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
As I said, the beginning and end of a typical ID argument. ID adds nothing to scientific understanding.
ID shows where science may have limits. Big time and resource saver. ID can help stop faulty theories from surfacing and misleading science. Universal common descent is an example. Alan, please do not get in the way of more sensible biological science just to satisfy your political ideology.bill cole
August 13, 2022
August
08
Aug
13
13
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 23

Leave a Reply