The discussion centers on the evolutionary history of bats, questioning whether it is rooted more in myth or in scientific understanding. Participants explore the evidence for bat evolution, compare it to human evolution, and consider the broader implications of evolutionary understanding across species.
Participants express differing views on the clarity and completeness of evolutionary understanding for bats, with no consensus reached on whether their origins are more myth or science. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the depth of evidence available.
Participants acknowledge the complexity of evolutionary relationships and the limitations of current understanding, emphasizing that evolutionary trees for all organisms are incomplete.
Found this article published in The Smithsonian. I'll give it a read.Rive said:
Do we have an evolutionary understanding of anything? Every organism has an incomplete family tree. Where do you draw the line between :"understanding" and "not understabding"?Gear300 said:
Bats seem very fit for close combat where it outperforms say bows, a good step up from a fist, yet easy to manufacture, handle and maintain, compared to a sword that needs continous sharpening and a bit more skill to use. A good balance between simplicity, resources and function in the context of a low tech environmentGear300 said:
