TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A Textbook Evolutionary Story About Moths and Bats Is Wrong

47 点作者 Yossi_Frenkel超过 5 年前

3 条评论

ncmncm超过 5 年前
I take moths&#x27; hearing as evidence for Cretaceous echolocators. Other insects? Pterosaurs? Birds? Flying mammals that were not bats? Proto-crypto-bats? Could be any of them, or several. Most terrestrial species disappeared, so most of the interesting ones did.<p>It is amazing to be able to deduce the past existence of creatures that left no physical trace.
评论 #21326616 未加载
seagullz超过 5 年前
Apparently was a (sophisticated) just so story ... <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boop.org&#x2F;jan&#x2F;justso&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boop.org&#x2F;jan&#x2F;justso&#x2F;</a>
jessaustin超过 5 年前
To be so gleeful in its disdain for a couple of goofy mistakes, TFA misuses the language in such a way as to perpetuate a similar sort of mistake. &quot;So bees invented butterflies?&quot; &quot;...moths then transformed their existing ears...&quot; Yuck. Sure, it&#x27;s just metaphor, but this sort of metaphor has historically caused a lot of confusion about evolution. Intent is not a feature of natural selection. Atlantic readers have a hard enough time with this as it is; they certainly don&#x27;t need to read this pseudo-creationist garbage.
评论 #21324393 未加载
评论 #21324919 未加载