How do evolutionists explain the 'irreducible complexity' of a bat's sonar?

Question

The transmitter and the receiver both have to work very, very well for it to be useful to the bat. If a bat had one or the other parts of the mechanism that are only "part way done", it does the bat no good, and would provides no competitive advantage for survival, as I understand the theory of evolution.

For purposes of discussion, suppose it took 10,000 gradual mutations for the whole thing to work at all. After 1,000 mutations, it is still useless.

Yet, my understanding is that the earliest bat fossils are fully formed ... there aren't 'links'.

Answer 1

Your question is a good one, and one that many people have actively explored and continue to explore. As with any theory, it is never simple taken "on faith" but must stand up to the ongoing scrutiny of numerous scientist who would like nothing better than to disprove something so overwhelming accepted within the scientific community as evolution.

Before bat's sonar, others have raised the "complexity" issue with other examples, like the eye.

Unfortunately, I am not an expert in the field, but I remember coming across several articles and reserach on that topic. I would suggest trying a cross-reference with Scientific American magazine. I believe their have been several noted people in the field who have provided insight. I believe they list references to other published work in those articles. For example, I believe their is good evidence to suggest that evolution is not always a process of "10, 000" gradual mutations and that their is some intriguing "links" as you have described it to bat sonar that have added some depth to our understanding of evolution, but again, I'm not an expert.

I applaud you efforts to seek some rational understanding and to approach an issue like evolution that many people feel threatens some aspect of their religious faith. It seems to me that one can not truly be reverent without using the gifts that God has given us- our intelligence and curiosity to understand his creation- to stand in wonder and awe.

Good luck.

Answer 2

You make assertions without proof. Continuous improvement of directional hearing without the sound emitter still creates an advantage in locating prey. Just being able to lock in on the hum of an insects wings enough to head in the right direction for food is sufficient survival advantage. Once you have the high frequency to hear the insects, why not locate mates with high frequency chirps that become further refined into sonar? Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated in a biological system, but there is good money in lying about it.

The ultradelicate, lightweight skeletons of bats, minimized for flight, are very unlikely to fossilize. There is a paucity in the fossil record. There are no relatively complete fossils of early bats, to date.

Answer 3

Complexity is only irreducible to people without imagination.

Look at how blind people navigate. One way is to wear hard soled shoes. Then the clicks on the street echo differently so they know where they are.

Now imagine a blind race of people. The ones with better hearing will survive better.

So its the same with bats. Even a mouse can squeak and hear the echo. Imagine refining that system over many generations in the dark.

The earliest bat fossils had some echolocation capacity but maybe not fully developed. This site explains why bat fossils are very rare.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

Answer 4

Yeah, so a much more satisfying and scientifically valid answer is that a mythical, all powerful god-like figure took time out of his busy day and said "Let there be bat sonar!" Uh huh... sure...

If you had bothered to read any 4th grade text on the history of science as an organizing human activity, you would know that a "theory" is an idea that generally explains MOST (hardly ever ALL) instances of observed data. The fact that there are occasional counter-instances that do not support the theory does not mean that the theory has no value or isn't a good approximation of reality. It simply means that the theory is a good candidate for further refinement as new facts become known. The theory OF evolution is a theory IN evolution.

.

Answer 5

Probably, the real answer is, that the early bats were without their sonar (it's more like sonar than radar) but eventually, because they begin nesting in the dark, the bats that had the early version didn't run into the walls and break their necks as much as the ones without the sonar and, eventually, it EVOLVED into the system they use today.

I seriously doubt some simplistic GOD figure had anything to do with it.

Answer 6

physics