Where did bats come from?

[SUTG]

So where do you guys think bats came from?

Here's your answer, bob.

 

[noguru]

Yeah, if I am allowed to do that, I can solve any scientific mystery. Try it!

Try it? I do it all the time. It helps me to sleep better at night. :chuckle:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So where do you guys think bats came from?

I take it that Vern and noguru just said they don't know and/or don't care.

Do you actually care what evolutionary theory says about the history of the bat and its ancestors? If so SUTG has provided some good links. Or are you just taking a stab in the dark trying to play "stump the evolutionists" as though blank spots in the fossil record will somehow help your failing cause? In order to disprove evolution you'd be better off starting with something more overarching than just one branch on the mamillian tree. Try disproving:
The age of the Earth
The age of the cosmos
The age of the sun
The mechanics of geology
The fossil record
The integrated nature of biology
Pretty much the entire field of genetics
Well, you get the idea. Oh and by "disprove" I mean more than "PROTEIN FOLDING!" and "DNA/RNA INTEGRATION!" arguments from incredulity.

 

[noguru]

So where do you guys think bats came from?

I take it that Vern and noguru just said they don't know and/or don't care.

There is a big difference between admitting ignorance and apathy. Actually as a child bats were one my first interests regarding the natural world. I started studying bats about 6 months before I developed an interest in fish and reptiles. I was around 5 or 6. I think it was the mystery surrounding these nocturnal flying animals that first got my attention. But just because I admit my ignorance about the exact nature of their non-flying mammal common ancestor, does not mean that I need to fill the gap with God as an explanation.

 

[Ktoyou]

I thought they came from a belfry

As in bats in your belfry, streaming from the ears of kooks :chew:

 

[SUTG]

Actually as a child bats were one my first interests regarding the natural world. I started studying bats about 6 months before I developed an interest in fish and reptiles.

Do you have an aquarium?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I thought they came from a belfry

As in bats in your belfry, streaming from the ears of kooks :chew:

You're only pushing the mystery one step back! How did they get into the belfry?

 

[SUTG]

You're only pushing the mystery one step back! How did they get into the belfry?

It's belfrys all the way down.

 

[noguru]

Do you have an aquarium?

I have not had an aquarium of my own in about 15 years. When I was younger I had many different aquariums. I started off keeping bullheads. But they were not very challenging, so I lost interest. When I was about 9 or 10 I started toying with the idea of keeping trout in an aquarium. Keeping trout in an aquarium in southern New England without a cooling system is quite a challenge, and I love a challenge. I took careful measurements throughout a whole year of the temperature of our basement. The highest temperature it ever reached was about 71 F. This is the upper range of temperature for whcih trout can survive. So I bought a 100 gallon aquarium. In the summer I kept the aquarium in the basement, in the winter I moved it to my bedroom. I kept three different species of trout in that aquarium, since there was a trout hatchery 15 minutes from my house. The brook trout proved problematic, they would follow the flow of water from my external filter and end up flopping on the floor. I did managed to keep a brown trout for over two years.

After that I went to tropical fish. I chose the more aggressive types they call fast fish, because they were more interesting to me. I had many different species of cychlids, an African knifefish, a ropefish, freshwater shark (not really a skark), gouramis, danus.... At one point I had 4 aquariums. A 5 gallon that I used to keep the feeders, a 10 gallon for smaller fish, and a 35 gallon for fast fish that proved to be too aggressive for my 100 gallon aquarium.

 

[SUTG]

The trout story was very interesting. It must've been a chore moving that 71g twice a year.

I used to breeed Tanganyikan Chichlids, but now I have an 80g with a single fish. it is about a five or six inch Balistapus undulatus.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The trout story was very interesting. It must've been a chore moving that 71g twice a year.

I used to breeed Tanganyikan Chichlids, but now I have an 80g with a single fish. it is about a five or six inch Balistapus undulatus.

That's a cool looking fish!

 

[SUTG]

That's a cool looking fish!

He should be very cool when he is fullgrown. (probably about a foot)

He is very, very mean though. You can hear him snapping his jaws together from across the room.

 

[noguru]

The trout story was very interesting. It must've been a chore moving that 71g twice a year.

I used to breeed Tanganyikan Chichlids, but now I have an 80g with a single fish. it is about a five or six inch Balistapus undulatus.

That is a cychlid? It is difficult to see its fin structure. That is a beautiful fish.

 

[bob b]

Here's your answer, bob.

Actually it isn't. From your link:

"Discussion of Phylogenetic Relationships
The fossil record of bats extends back at least to the early Eocene, and chiropteran fossils are known from all continents except Antarctica. Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, unlike most other fossil bats, have not been referred to any extant family or superfamily. These Eocene taxa are known from exceptionally well-preserved fossils, and they have long formed a basis for reconstructing the early evolutionary history of Chiroptera (see review in Simmons and Geisler, 1998).

Smith (1977) suggested that these taxa represent an extinct clade of early microchiropterans ("Palaeochiropterygoidea"). In contrast, Van Valen (1979) argued that these fossil forms are representatives of a primitive grade ancestral to both Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera ("Eochiroptera"). Novacek (1987) reanalyzed morphology of Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropterx and concluded that they are more closely related to Microchroptera than to Megachiroptera. Most recently, Simmons and Geisler (1998) found that Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx represent a series of consecutive sister-taxa to extant microchiropteran bats."

Note that they do not identify an ancestor.

Also remember that all lifeforms, extant or fossil or extinct are of necessity a species.

So to identify an ancestor one must name the ancestral species from which the bat species in question descended from. If one cannot do this then it is best to admit that the ancestor is unknown.

 

[SUTG]

That is a cychlid? It is difficult to see its fin structure. That is a beautiful fish.

No, not a cichlid. It is a saltwater fish, an Undulated Triggerfish.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Actually it isn't. From your link:

"Discussion of Phylogenetic Relationships
The fossil record of bats extends back at least to the early Eocene, and chiropteran fossils are known from all continents except Antarctica. Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx, unlike most other fossil bats, have not been referred to any extant family or superfamily. These Eocene taxa are known from exceptionally well-preserved fossils, and they have long formed a basis for reconstructing the early evolutionary history of Chiroptera (see review in Simmons and Geisler, 1998).

Smith (1977) suggested that these taxa represent an extinct clade of early microchiropterans ("Palaeochiropterygoidea"). In contrast, Van Valen (1979) argued that these fossil forms are representatives of a primitive grade ancestral to both Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera ("Eochiroptera"). Novacek (1987) reanalyzed morphology of Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropterx and concluded that they are more closely related to Microchroptera than to Megachiroptera. Most recently, Simmons and Geisler (1998) found that Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx represent a series of consecutive sister-taxa to extant microchiropteran bats."

Note that they do not identify an ancestor.

Also remember that all lifeforms, extant or fossil or extinct are of necessity a species.

So to identify an ancestor one must name the ancestral species from which the bat species in question descended from. If one cannot do this then it is best to admit that the ancestor is unknown.

So once again its the same old garbage, after all. We don't have a road map of the bat's development with all species taxonomically recorded, therefore it didn't develop at all and "goddidit" once again. Astonishing.
Here's some fossil bats to whet your appetite.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

 

[noguru]

No, not a cichlid. It is a saltwater fish, an Undulated Triggerfish.

I caught another species of triggerfish on Saturday. They are amazing fish, and colorful.

 

[bob b]

So once again its the same old garbage, after all. We don't have a road map of the bat's development with all species taxonomically recorded, therefore it didn't develop at all and "goddidit" once again. Astonishing.
Here's some fossil bats to whet your appetite.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/chirofr.html

As expected your link says nothing about ancestors of the bat.

"Chiroptera: Fossil Record
Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats.

Some mammal teeth from the Paleocene of France show characters of both bats and insectivores (the group including the hedgehogs, shrews and moles of today).
However, since these fossils are only teeth, we don't know what the rest of the animal was like. The next bat fossils start turning up in the Eocene, in sites with unusually complete preservation of whole skeletons, such as the Green River Formation of Wyoming and the Messel Shale of Germany. These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.
The oldest megachiropteran (flying fox, or fruitbat) is Oligocene in age, from Italy; it and a Miocene fossil from Africa make up the entire known fossil record of megachiropterans."

 

[PlastikBuddha]

As expected your link says nothing about ancestors of the bat.

"Chiroptera: Fossil Record
Although bats are one of the most diverse groups of mammals today, they are one of the least common groups in the fossil record. Bats have small, light skeletons that do not preserve well. Also, many live in tropical forests, where conditions are usually unfavorable for the formation of fossils. Thus we know little about the early evolution of bats.

Some mammal teeth from the Paleocene of France show characters of both bats and insectivores (the group including the hedgehogs, shrews and moles of today).
However, since these fossils are only teeth, we don't know what the rest of the animal was like. The next bat fossils start turning up in the Eocene, in sites with unusually complete preservation of whole skeletons, such as the Green River Formation of Wyoming and the Messel Shale of Germany. These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.
The oldest megachiropteran (flying fox, or fruitbat) is Oligocene in age, from Italy; it and a Miocene fossil from Africa make up the entire known fossil record of megachiropterans."

Um, :duh:, but the fossilized bats ARE ancestral. It shows that the ancestral forms were insectivores. What are you expecting it to say about them? You don't want answers, so why do you ask questions?

 

[noguru]

Um, :duh:, but the fossilized bats ARE ancestral. It shows that the ancestral forms were insectivores. What are you expecting it to say about them? You don't want answers, so why do you ask questions?

He wants it to say that God created them.