ChatGPT was totally in tune with this concept. The appendage on the elbow of the wing can be a paw or not a paw but it certainly evolved from paws. The reasoning was spot on and amazingly nuanced.
(Add a grain of salt because I searched for about 15 minutes here.)
Doing some digging, paws are "soft foot-like parts of a mammal, generally a quadruped, that has claws" (Wikipedia). Bats do appear to have claws, but not really with the same structure as a paw; they don't seem to be mounted above a soft, fleshy pad. Rather, they're at the top of the wing, sitting on bone. They're also very different in function, when I've had the fortune to see a bat they seemed to use the claw to climb in a similar way to how climbers use ice axes.
My impression is that bat's claws are the anatomical equivalent of a thumb, not a hand/paw, and that the entire paw or hand of bat's ancestors evolved into their wings (sort of like if your fingers became very long and webbed and then you were able to fly with them).
So, my conclusion is that no, the claws of a bat are not a paw.
ETA: I neglected to consider their hind claws, but I don't think those are padded either.
That certainly has claws but I wouldn't describe that as being soft or as being similar to a paw. And they're pretty clearly made for hanging, climbing, and grasping prey/food, and not for walking.
Well, if you're looking for my opinion, I don't think they're trolling. But I do think both of you were (intentionally or unintentionally) goading each other from a disagreement to an argument with your rhetoric (eg, where you said, "let's assume that's a reasonable source", or when they said "you obviously sourced this it just didn't match your point so you discarded it" - that brings up the temperature of the conversation).
Bats are quadrupeds. When they walk they walk like a pterodactyl with the elbow of the wing. They don't stand on their hind legs. See the vampire bat. Additionally the "broad" definition from Merriam Websters covers it.
These aren't pedantic details we are just nitpicking on either. ChatGPT's response considered the nuance the definition encompasses, which to keep on topic is thoroughly impressive and relevant to the overall conversation.
Off-topic:
The person you queried mentioned "intentional goading." Which is what you're continuing to do with that Calvin and Hobbes link. I think this, the flag and accusing me of trolling is taking it too far. A little minor goading is ok during a debate, (I actually don't completely agree with the absolutist politeness policies of HN). While I returned the goad (which I shouldn't have), ultimately I didn't really have a problem with it. I think, now though, it has escalated now past the point of no return. I'll be exiting this thread because of this. Farewell.
Look up the definition of a paw. I think you have a sort of mixed up definition of what it is. Possibly a different definition used among your "bat expert" friends.
And I quote (again):
Paw: the foot of a quadruped (such as a lion or dog) that has claws
broadly : the foot of an animal
Both the broad and technical definition of paw fits what the bat has. Bats have paws.
The thing you are referring to is likely are these soft pads that are often on the paws, sometimes called paw pads.
Birds don't have paws because they aren't quadrupeds according to websters.
Bats walk on fours. They are quadrupeds therefore they have paws according to Merriam Webster.
Why don't you address the point I brought up? I already completely understand your definition no need to reiterate it. However, there is a clear disconnect between your definition of paw and the definition from Merriam Webster. Please address it.
This subthread is a flamewar that died down. Please don't rekindle it. The point has been made to death, and making it again but more insulting makes it more difficult for people who might disagree to consider the perspective, because they have to filter out their feelings about being insulted - a weighty task - in order to begin considering it, let alone accepting it.
I'm ok with your language. I found the "competent in English" rather immature and juvenile, but it's not a big deal and really minor.
I also understand that you might not realize how heated this sub thread was as the other guy deleted half his posts and flagged one of mine (therefore possibly making it invisible to you). So adding a little heat to something that looks tame isn't a big deal. I won't continue the flame war but I will continue the discussion.
It's not my interpretation. It's about the interpretation by Merriam Webster. I believe not only is it your interpretation that is incorrect when compared to official sources, but you didn't fully read the official definition either.
The eagle is not a quadruped. The definition in Merriam Webster says it has to be on a quadruped for it to be a paw. Hence your example is completely irrelevant. Please correct your mistake.
I'm presuming you're new here since your account is new & I seem to detect some misunderstandings about how HN works. If I presume too much, my apologies.
Are you aware of the "showdead" function in your settings? I don't think they deleted any comments, they were flagged. If you turn on showdead, you'll be able to see them again. (You can't delete a comment someone's responded to, or after 2 hours.)
I don't know if that other commenter flagged your post, but I don't think it matters. I didn't flag any posts here, but both of you guys were getting flagged. In situations like that, I try to interpret the flags as a request from the overall community not to have that sort of discussion on the forum. The sort of argument you were engaged with (and I recognize this isn't fully on you here, it takes two to tango) is against the guidelines of the site and generally frowned upon by the community, so there's no reason to suspect this other commenter was flagging you. At least 3 people were flagging both of your posts.
I understand that you feel pointed language is appropriate in a debate, and that HM'd guidelines here are patronizing. That's all well and good. The objection of the community isn't a moralizing one. It's a practical one; the issue is that flamewars displace the type of discussion this community is seeking to have and erode the good will on which the forum turns.
(And I do agree that bats crawling on the ground is quadrupedalism, for what it's worth. I'm not sure if that makes them a quadruped or not since that isn't their primary move of locomotion, indeed my understanding is that it's a vulnerable position for them and that it's quite deadly [since they can't evade predators].)
It says: "I don't really write stuff. What I do is use my personally trained LLM (trained on my own conversations) to respond to people. So you are talking to me in a way but not really.
Any query my LLM gets wrong I will interject with my own response but this is only 5% of the time."
Maybe this is not off-topic after all. Does HN have a policy on bots?
Thanks for your response. I want to continue the conversation on bats so I won't respond about the other stuff.
Take a look at this. The bats are walking on all fours: https://youtu.be/ewmydjekJnU?t=62 This is not a vulnerable position as they crawl on all fours on cave walls rather then the ground. On the ground they are vulnerable, on the wall or ceiling of some cavernous structure they are safe.
Bat paw: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Bat_in_a...
ChatGPT was totally in tune with this concept. The appendage on the elbow of the wing can be a paw or not a paw but it certainly evolved from paws. The reasoning was spot on and amazingly nuanced.