[_ Old Earth _] Beat Your Brains Out, Evos! Like the Woodpecker...

[Asyncritus]

I watched, totally gobsmacked, at the program Wonders of Nature screened tonight.

It was about the marvellous little bird: the woodpecker.

The woodpecker bores into wood, to a depth of about 4 inches, to find its insect prey. It can apparently hear the grubs scrunching away in there, and sets about getting them by boring up to 4 inches in solid wood.

In order to do this, it bangs its beak into the wood, with a force of about 19 G's, and somehow, just somehow, manages to avoid beating its brains into mush from the ferocity and frequency of the impacts.

If a motorcyclist banged his head even once against a solid plank with that amount of force, he would smash his skull into little pieces, and die immediately.

The woodpecker survives, and lives to drill another day.

The scientists, needless to say, are fascinated by this bird's skull, and the way it is able to absorb the impacts on the wood.

If crash helmets, for example, could absorb the impacts as well as the woodpecker's skull does, then a huge number of lives would not be lost in collisions.

So they set about copying the design of the woodpecker skull.
"
Slow-motion footage, X-ray images and computer simulations have shed light on how woodpeckers avoid injuries to their brains as they peck.

Their heads move some 6m/s (20ft/s), at each peck enduring a deceleration more than 1,000 times that of gravity.

But researchers reporting in Plos One say that unequal upper and lower beak lengths and spongy, plate-like bone structure protect the birds' brains....

The birds have little "sub-dural space" between their brains and their skulls, so the brain does not have room to bump around as it does in humans. Also, their brains are longer top-to-bottom than front-to-back, meaning the force against the skull is spread over a larger brain area.

A highly-developed bone called the hyoid - which in humans is just above the "Adam's apple" - has also been studied: starting at the underside of the birds' beaks, it makes a full loop through their nostrils, under and around the back of their skulls, over the top and meeting again before the forehead.
[...]

The team's simulations showed that three factors were at work in sparing the birds injury.

Firstly, the hyoid bone's looping structure around the whole skull was found to act as a "safety belt", especially after the initial impact.

The team also found that the upper and lower halves of the birds' beaks were uneven, and as force was transmitted from the tip of the beak into the bone, this asymmetry lowered the load that made it as far as the brain.

Lastly, plate-like bones with a "spongy" structure at different points in the skull helped distribute the incoming force, thereby protecting the brain.

The team stresses that it is the combination of the three, rather than any one feature, that keeps woodpeckers pecking without injury." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15458633

​

[SIZE=+2]A woodpecker's skull (to the right)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]showing the bones of the tongue[/SIZE]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]There are five bones, thin and flexible with tiny joints.1 What made them exit through the right nostril and attach their sheath there, 2 circle behind the head and neck 3, and come back into the hollow between the two halves of the beak? 4[/SIZE][/FONT]


Dr. Sunderland, the owner of the skull in the picture, writes, "The woodpecker's skull has been more effective in convincing scientists of the inadequacies of the evolution theory than perhaps any book in the author's library.

Other birds have hyoid bones also, but it would seem obvious that some sort of miracle would be needed to get them rooted in the right nostril.

One prominent evolutionist on the staff of a prestigious scientific magazine confided after examining it 'There are certain anatomical features which just cannot be explained by gradual mutations over millions of years. Just between you and me, I have to get God into the act too sometimes.'"http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

The hopeless talkorigins writer on the subject, is a little rusty in logic.

He has failed utterly, to address the real problems, which the producer of the Wonders of Nature program mentioned above illustrated beautifully.

This is what I mean.

One scientist designed a structure copying the arrangement of the 4 layers of bone in the woodpecker's skull.

They put an ordinary light bulb in the structure, protected from shock in the same way that the woodpecker's brain is protected in its skull, and then, attached the structure to a helium balloon.

The helium-filled balloon was released, and floated up to a height of 85,000 feet, when the structure containing the light bulb was released and fell to earth for about 15 minutes.

It reached a velocity exceeding the speed of sound, and crashed into a rock canyon several miles away from the intended target area, because of winds.

The capsule was found and opened on camera, and to everybody's surprise, the light bulb was intact, and the bulb still functioned.

To say I was gobsmacked is understating the case considerably.

But it is obvious that such an extraordinarily effective protecting device is needed to protect the woodpecker's brain from being pounded into mush.

It is equally obvious that those species of woodpecker with that protection could not have evolved by that foolishly bleated combination of mutations and natural selection!

If the first such proto-woodpecker had no such protection, then its first effort to drill into solid wood would have ended in failure and concussion!

And he would have gone and found some easier way to make a living.

But no. Here they all are, drilling away happily in wood, to the discomfiture of the grubs they catch, and the embarrassment of the OOOHHHH--MMMM---Natural selecti--oo--nnn and mu----ta----tionnn brigade.

And the wonderfully intelligent design of their skulls may yet be copied by intelligent mankind, and save the lives of many, including the evolutionist motorcyclists.

Some idiot will doubtless point to other similar birds, wave a magic wand and say, why, here's a few simpler kinds of woodpecker. They must have evolved somehow into this marvellously intricate little bird.

We know better, don't we.

It took a brain to design the system. It took brains to copy the system. Chance has no place here.

I may also point out the fact that all the equipment necessary to find and drill for insects, is entirely useless without the powering instincts required to employ the tools.

No-one in their right senses would dream of putting a pneumatic chisel in the hands of an untrained person, and say 'Here you are, find that insect under the pavement. Then stick your tongue into the hole, and bring it out!'

No, training and information about the use of the chisel is essential to success in its use.

Similarly here. The instincts necessary to the use of the ears of the bird, its beak, its tail, its claws and legs which support it on the tree trunk, its marvellous tongue, had to be implanted in completeness by the Creator. Else, the species would have perished before it started!

Go here for a fascinating account of the structure of the woodpecker's tongue!

http://www.hiltonpond.org/thisweek030308.html

 

[The Unbeliever]

Some idiot will doubtless point to other similar birds, wave a magic wand and say, why, here's a few simpler kinds of woodpecker. They must have evolved somehow into this marvellously intricate little bird.

We know better, don't we.

I don't know better. I suppose that makes me one of the idiots you were referring to.

 

[Barbarian]

I watched, totally gobsmacked, at the program Wonders of Nature screened tonight. It was about the marvellous little bird: the woodpecker.

Actually, there is no such thing as "the woodpecker", any more than there is such a thing as "the primate." There are lots, and lots of different woodpeckers, and almost-woodpeckers, each of them with different stages of different adaptations.

The woodpecker bores into wood, to a depth of about 4 inches, to find its insect prey. It can apparently hear the grubs scrunching away in there, and sets about getting them by boring up to 4 inches in solid wood.

Some highly-evolved ones do. But most don't excavate solid wood. They specialize in decaying wood. Flickers, for example, tend to feed on the ground, around fallen limbs, where they pick insects out of decaying wood, and under loose bark. They can peck more strongly than the piculets, which have even less robust beaks, lack stiff tail feathers, and excavate only rather soft, decaying wood.

Flickers have, however, a highly evolved hyoid apparatus that greatly lengthens the tongue. The hyoid branches go all the way around the head of flickers. In one species, it even enters the nostril.

Others wood peckers have less evolved hyoids, but most are longer than those of other birds (as adults; the young of the red-bellied woodpecker have hyoids no longer than chickens, but over time they grow as long as those of flickers.

In order to do this, it bangs its beak into the wood, with a force of about 19 G's, and somehow, just somehow, manages to avoid beating its brains into mush from the ferocity and frequency of the impacts.

Some, like the ivory bills, do. They have a highly evolved beak, with the connective tissue between beak and skull thickened and elastic, to provide a shock absorber. Other woodpeckers have similar, but much less evolved connective tissue. Flickers and piculets have the least, hardly different than most other birds. Again, numerous transitional forms exist, showing how this feature can evolve.

If a motorcyclist banged his head even once against a solid plank with that amount of force, he would smash his skull into little pieces, and die immediately.

G's are not force. They are acceleration.

John Stapp was subjected to 15 g for 0.6 second and a peak of 22 g during a 19 March 1954 rocket sled test. He would eventually survive a peak of more than 46 g, with more than 25 g for 1.1 sec.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

The woodpecker survives, and lives to drill another day.

A few species, which have the most highly-evolved adaptations. Other woodpeckers, less so. And flickers and piculets, hardly at all. Woodpeckers are a varied lot, with a lot of transitional forms.

The scientists, needless to say, are fascinated by this bird's skull, and the way it is able to absorb the impacts on the wood.

If crash helmets, for example, could absorb the impacts as well as the woodpecker's skull does, then a huge number of lives would not be lost in collisions.

The standards for safety helmets are in the range of hundreds of G's:
http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedings/a-thom-comparisontestsofmotorcyclehelmets.pdf

But researchers reporting in Plos One say that unequal upper and lower beak lengths and spongy, plate-like bone structure protect the birds' brains....

The birds have little "sub-dural space" between their brains and their skulls, so the brain does not have room to bump around as it does in humans. Also, their brains are longer top-to-bottom than front-to-back, meaning the force against the skull is spread over a larger brain area.

Some woodpeckers. And to a varying degree in others. Transitional, again.

A highly-developed bone called the hyoid...

See above. Interesting stuff. You have the same bone, much shorter, but it does the same things.

A woodpecker's skull (to the right)
showing the bones of the tongue
There are five bones, thin and flexible with tiny joints.1 What made them exit through the right nostril and attach their sheath there, 2 circle behind the head and neck 3, and come back into the hollow between the two halves of the beak? 4

Other birds have hyoid bones also, but it would seem obvious that some sort of miracle would be needed to get them rooted in the right nostril.

Or just growth. Check it out:

Young red-headed woodpeckers start out with hyoids no longer than those of chickens, and over time, they grow to the adult form. It seems completely foolish to deny that something which can develop in a single individual, cannot evolve over generations.

One prominent evolutionist on the staff of a prestigious scientific magazine confided after examining it 'There are certain anatomical features which just cannot be explained by gradual mutations over millions of years. Just between you and me, I have to get God into the act too sometimes.'"

But no confirmation or way to check it. Async's back to his old tricks.

One scientist designed a structure copying the arrangement of the 4 layers of bone in the woodpecker's skull.

They put an ordinary light bulb in the structure, protected from shock in the same way that the woodpecker's brain is protected in its skull, and then, attached the structure to a helium balloon.

The helium-filled balloon was released, and floated up to a height of 85,000 feet, when the structure containing the light bulb was released and fell to earth for about 15 minutes.

It reached a velocity exceeding the speed of sound, and crashed into a rock canyon several miles away from the intended target area, because of winds.

The capsule was found and opened on camera, and to everybody's surprise, the light bulb was intact, and the bulb still functioned.

Something of that size and density would hit terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere. Couldn't exceed the speed of sound. But I suppose Async will provide a checkable source for that. Actually, I don't.

To say I was gobsmacked is understating the case considerably.

"Gobsmacked" being a synonym for "suckered."

It is equally obvious that those species of woodpecker with that protection could not have evolved by that foolishly bleated combination of mutations and natural selection!

See above. Surprise.

If the first such proto-woodpecker had no such protection, then its first effort to drill into solid wood would have ended in failure and concussion!

Turns out, those proto-woodpeckers are still around. And not surprisingly, we see different levels of adaptation to pecking. The simplest ones aren't much different than other birds and excavate only very soft, rotting wood, or work under loose bark. Others excavate soft wood. And only the most advanced, like ivory bills, actually excavate living hardwood.

And he would have gone and found some easier way to make a living.

Starting out with very soft, decaying wood, natural selection can easily make gradual improvements, leading to the different transitional forms we see today.

And the wonderfully intelligent design of their skulls may yet be copied by intelligent mankind, and save the lives of many, including the evolutionist motorcyclists.

See above. Surprise. You see, the woodpecker arrangement is only possible for their particular brain/skull configuration. Humans need something better. Which is why the standards for headgear are so much greater.

Some idiot will doubtless point to other similar birds, wave a magic wand and say, why, here's a few simpler kinds of woodpecker.

Infuriating, um? As you feared, there are transitional forms in abundance. And each a bit more evolved than the other.

It took a brain to design the system. It took brains to copy the system.

Nope. Just a creator. Much more capable than Async's space alien designer.

Chance has no place here.

That was Darwin's great discovery. You're catching on, Async.

I may also point out the fact that all the equipment necessary to find and drill for insects, is entirely useless without the powering instincts required to employ the tools.

Other birds also pick at rotten wood for insects. But not quite as successfully as flickers, which are better adapted for excavating wood. Other woodpeckers, like the hairy woodpecker, are capable of excavating soft living wood, and of course, a few can excavate hardwood.

Similarly here. The instincts necessary to the use of the ears of the bird, its beak, its tail, its claws and legs which support it on the tree trunk

Flickers lack the stiff tail feathers, and even some more evolved woodpeckers lack a reversed hallux. So that's transitional, too.

its marvellous tongue, had to be implanted in completeness by the Creator. Else, the species would have perished before it started!

Surprise.

 

[Asyncritus]

As I said, we now have the usual fake transitionals, the wild guesses, the nit-picking, and the ignoring of the really fatal points brought forth.

Which are:

1 The very first woodpecker (whichever species it may have been) must have had the machinery needed to peck wood, and find the insects - or it would have starved to death. How do you account for the first one? What did it evolve from? A non-wood-pecking bird?

2 To stick to the relevancies. where did the first wood-pecker obtain the necessary instincts to perform this remarkable feat? Remember, readers, if it didn't have those instincts, it would have starved to death. It didn't, and its descendants are here today.

I don't know better. I suppose that makes me one of the idiots you were referring to.

Probably.

 

[cupid dave]

"It took a brain to design the system. It took brains to copy the system. Chance has no place here."

Errr,...
No.
It takes brains, like these scientists, to figure out how the Laws of Nature are satisified in this observable case of banging one's head into a pole and live.
The bible is telling us how our brain can image the facts of the real world inside our mind and develop the Truth about this almighty external cosmos we are trapped within.

Exodus 28:30
And thou shalt put in the (curious and cunningly designed foursquare) breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, (i.e.; that physical model which reveals the Pattern that the mind seeks to discover in Nature); and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, (i.e.; the breastplate of twelve Cortex Functional Areas of information, the seven Archetypal thinking sources of revelation, together with doctrines of Truth sourced in the triade ofhuman Consciousness), when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

Urim and Thummim has traditionally been translated as lights and perfections (by Theodotion, for example), or, by taking the phrase allegorically, as meaning revelation and truth, or doctrine and truth (it appears in this form in the Vulgate, in the writing of Jerome, and in the Hexapla).[2]

 

[The Unbeliever]

Probably.

At least now we have confirmed that you are incapable of polite discussion. For future reference, calling people who don't believe as you do idiots is an ad hominem. I believe it is a behavior I have heard many Christians complain of when interacting with atheists. Surely you can behave better than an atheist, for they don't have the Holy Spirit helping them.

 

[cupid dave]

At least now we have confirmed that you are incapable of polite discussion. For future reference, calling people who don't believe as you do idiots is an ad hominem. I believe it is a behavior I have heard many Christians complain of when interacting with atheists. Surely you can behave better than an atheist, for they don't have the Holy Spirit helping them.

Oh, definitely right.

But consider the psychology of religious people.
They start off with their assumption that they are right in general about what they believe because they call that faith.
Then they gather together into congregations of other people who at first seem to agree with them.
United, they support much of what they all believe in common, and call these ideas their Faith, (capital F).

The next thing, that their own history will support, is their reaction to people who say things that make what they all believe look a little shaky.
Or, in cases when people tell them things they have no information on, have never thought about, or are completely ignorant of, like the Urim and Thummim, for instance, they will try to shut that person and what he says out.
They will just become deaf and blind to the things that concern such Bible related ideas as if the person and the ideas will and should go away.

We see this with Evolution Vs Creationsim.
They religious people are deaf, dumb and blind about Gen 1:14, which clearly tells them that the 24 hour day was not created until the 4th duration of the Creation,.
Hence the seven "days" were never 24 hours long.

So don't get offended by these rebuttals and childish comments when you try to edify and save them from their own lies.

 

[Asyncritus]

At least now we have confirmed that you are incapable of polite discussion. For future reference, calling people who don't believe as you do idiots is an ad hominem. I believe it is a behavior I have heard many Christians complain of when interacting with atheists. Surely you can behave better than an atheist, for they don't have the Holy Spirit helping them.

I don't remember calling you an idiot.

I merely agreed politely with your own statement. That's hardly impolite, is it?

 

[The Unbeliever]

I don't remember calling you an idiot.

I didn't say you called me an idiot. I said you called people who do not believe as you do idiots. This is a matter of record and the truth of it is easily discerned with a simple reading of your initial post. I merely noted that the broad swath of humanity you wished to paint with your offensive remark seemed to include myself.

I merely agreed politely with your own statement. That's hardly impolite, is it?

I will be generous in my assumption that you are more perceptive than this statement seems to indicate.

 

[Sparkey]

I watched, totally gobsmacked, at the program Wonders of Nature screened tonight.
...
It was about the marvellous little bird: the woodpecker.


The woodpecker survives, and lives to drill another day.
...
If crash helmets, for example, could absorb the impacts as well as the woodpecker's skull does, then a huge number of lives would not be lost in collisions.

So they set about copying the design of the woodpecker skull.
...
Dr. Sunderland, the owner of the skull in the picture, writes, "The woodpecker's skull has been more effective in convincing scientists of the inadequacies of the evolution theory than perhaps any book in the author's library.
...

Greetings Async!

Although I am not some "evolutionist motorcyclist", I do own a 750cc Yahaha Silverado that I very much enjoy riding. I too appreciate the ability that scientists have when they copy things -- especially when I can translate that into greater safety (both to me and to the potential victims of my higher rates of speed while riding). I live in Washington state, so needless to say, I don't get that much time for riding and every contribution (no matter if it is from the Children of Darkness or from the Children of Light) counts!

What I am gobsmacked about comes when I see my brothers in Christ pounding their heads against wood without much chance of getting a grub. Not trying to insult your obvious intelligence but we, as Christians, are not designed for headsmacking or bible-thumping. Sure, we can do it, but it's not our best implementation of method. I've heard that we can expect more flies if we use honey.

I fear that my religion itself may become of no use if I do not harness my tongue to the purpose of God. The definition is simple: Love God above all else. I must therefore hold my tongue to the harness of the Purpose that God has fitted me for. It is in the book written by the Holy Spirit through James that I also hear about a message to Christians: That we are to count our falling into trial as our greatest joy. This speaks to me of endurance, another concept that your post touches upon.

I like your motto: "The woodpecker survives, and lives to drill another day." It reminds me of the Perseverance that James speaks about and the promise behind it, that if we continue in Christ, we will mature and become full and complete, lacking nothing (see James 1:2-5 NIV)

Sometimes we mistake our time and think it is harvest time when it is merely given to us to plant seed. Sure, we can find grubs while planting - but if we wait, the promise of a full harvest will be seen (and it won't be grubs, it will be what we are designed for - the Fruit of the Earth!). Blessings to you, brother in Christ. Continue the "good fight" and remember to show your JOY to all that your Father loves.

Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

As I said, we now have the usual fake transitionals, the wild guesses, the nit-picking, and the ignoring of the really fatal points brought forth.

Well, let's take a look...

Async imagines:

1 The very first woodpecker (whichever species it may have been) must have had the machinery needed to peck wood, and find the insects - or it would have starved to death.

Unless, of course, it started by picking through badly-decayed wood, pulling insects from that. Some woodpeckers, like flickers, still do that. And as you learned, others are slightly adapted to less crumbly wood, and others still further adapted to harder woods. Only a few kinds of woodpeckers have adaptations suitable for excavating living hardwood.

How do you account for the first one?

Nonwoodpeckers often scavenge such rotting wood too.

What did it evolve from? A non-wood-pecking bird?

So the evidence says. Piculets differ from true woodpeckers in several ways, but have the same arthropod-hunting habits as flickers. Barbulets are even more distantly related, but seek insects in the crevices of trees and fallen logs. This has been confirmed by DNA analysis, which as you know, is testable, since we can confirm it works by testing organisms of known descent.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cf...q=barbets woodpeckers dna phylogenies&f=false

To stick to the relevancies. where did the first wood-pecker obtain the necessary instincts to perform this remarkable feat?

Already had them. All sorts of birds peck at things. And in crumbling wood, it's easy to pick out insects.

I don't know better. I suppose that makes me one of the idiots you were referring to.

I don't think you're an idiot. Just woefully ignorant of living things.

 

[cupid dave]

Greetings Async!



Not trying to insult your obvious intelligence but we, as Christians, are not designed for headsmacking or bible-thumping. Sure, we can do it, but it's not our best implementation of method. I've heard that we can expect more flies if we use honey.

I fear that my religion itself may become of no use if I do not harness my tongue to the purpose of God. The definition is simple: Love God above all else.
Cordially,
Sparrowhawke

Hi Sparrow.

I agree with you.
Cordial conversation, openess, and a brotherly attitude is civilized, and certainly more Christian than what we often see in the heat of people trying to defend their private interpretations or espousing them.

But I do think you are wrong on two points here, or perhaps three.

The prophets never used honey because that has always been the tool of the false shepherds who have herds of lambs collected into their congregations where the preraching tells them what they wantto hear, not what they wish they could avoid, i.e., the truth.

An example, the Church is pro-life, vocally and politically.
But, today, 66% of all abortions are by young, never married, pregnant girls who check "Christian" in the box which asks for their religious affiliatations.
We do not heard these facts from our pulpits.



Another issue I take with what you said concerns the "purpose of god."
The purpose of the Torah and the prophets is Love of God AND neighbor, of course.
But the purpose of Christ is Truth, and its acceptance by mankind.

The last criticism I would mention concerns Bible Thumpin', which I believe is a direct assignmebt to preach and teach the message.

 

[cupid dave]

G's are not force. They are acceleration.

John Stapp was subjected to 15 g for 0.6 second and a peak of 22 g during a 19 March 1954 rocket sled test. He would eventually survive a peak of more than 46 g, with more than 25 g for 1.1 sec.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force
Surprise.

The issue here concerns Impulse.

This is a measure of what Force is in action over the time it takes for the bird's beak to stop moving forward into the tree.
You can "'see" that this is a measure of decelleration.

We must conclude that "15 g" means a force 15 times greater than the gravitational force of the Earth.

The main utility of the concept is in the study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions, the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated.

So "g" is a Force, but the determining out come is how long the beak has to slow to a stop.
It is like catching eggs, if one absoebs the force by moving his hand back, as he grabs the egg, the Impulse is small, and the egg will not break.

Nevertheless, you stand corrected.
G's are a measure of Force, is gravity itself a Force of 1.

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Unless, of course, it started by picking through badly-decayed wood, pulling insects from that. Some woodpeckers, like flickers, still do that. And as you learned, others are slightly adapted to less crumbly wood, and others still further adapted to harder woods. Only a few kinds of woodpeckers have adaptations suitable for excavating living hardwood.

Those are the ones we're discussing, remember?

Now back to reality. Where did their abilities come from?

Your 'adapted' is really a synonym for either 'I don't know where this came from', or 'that's how they were made in the first place'.

Imagine, you're woodpecker No 1. Or rather, you're going to become W1. But you've never pecked a hole in any kind of wood in your life. You haven't a clue that there are insect grubs in there.

Now why would you start pecking at what looks like solid wood? And supposing you did find out that it's a good plan. How do your children find out? Remember, Lamarckism is dead. Info acquired cannot be inherited.

So no evolution is possible.

And do they start pecking at harder and harder wood till they either break their beaks, or bash their brains out? Or what?

Next guess please. [/FONT]

Nonwoodpeckers often scavenge such rotting wood too.

And so what?

So the evidence says. Piculets differ from true woodpeckers in several ways, but have the same arthropod-hunting habits as flickers. Barbulets are even more distantly related, but seek insects in the crevices of trees and fallen logs. This has been confirmed by DNA analysis, which as you know, is testable, since we can confirm it works by testing organisms of known descent.

I'm not sure what this proves. We are discussing hardwood woodpeckers. The fact that there are lesser woodpeckers means nothing at all, except that you now have to explain how they too originated.

Did they evolve into hardwood WPs, or did the hardwoods degenerate into non-hardwoods?

Incidentally, you may be interested to hear about the woodpecker's tongue - an amazing organ, which could simply not have evolved from any inferior tongues. Here:

Next, consider the woodpecker’s tongue.

Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating.

The ants’ defense mechanism is no problem either, because the tongue comes complete with a system that negates ant poison (see Yahya, 2004). Juhasz commented:
How does the woodpecker know it has caught the insects? The Creator has given it a tongue with a hard spearhead with bristles pointing rearward, which is attached by tiny fibres of the protein collagen.

As the tongue probes a tunnel, the impact of the spearhead on any object jams the head back along the shaft. Nerve endings are precisely located in the fluid-filled spaces between the collagen fibres. They provide the brain with information about the type of material contacted; thus, the woodpecker knows whether it has secured an insect or hit the hard wood of a tree.

Once the insects stick to its tongue, the woodpecker pulls them from the tree, then pulls in its long tongue and scrapes the insects off into its mouth (2001).
Consider the beak itself. Like a chisel, it is capable of penetrating even the hardest of wood, and, unlike manmade saws, its point never needs sharpening.

Ever seen a picture of the woodpecker's tongue? Here:

​

Notice the unevolvable.

The barbs are there, so that when the spearhead enters the tissue of the grub, the grub cannot get away - like the barbs on a hook.

The hook is clearly designed (no DNA evidence needed!). What about the barbs on the WP's tongue?

You note that starvation would occur in this feeding situation, if the barbs were absent, since the grub would merely slip off the tongue four inches into the wood! Extinction.

Interestingly, the longest tongue in the bird kingdom is the wryneck woodpecker's, which is about 0.66x the bird's body length. Some woodies' tongues are 4 to 5 inches long. Coincidence? Evolution? Nonsense - they were designed that way.

Here's hiltonpond with some more amazing facts:

Within the entire length of woodpecker's tongue lies the "hyoid apparatus," a linear series of tiny bones sheathed in muscles and soft tissue; the ultra-thin hyoid bones, which fold up accordion-like along part of their length, are visible in the photo below right.

You observe: a long entirely flexible tongue like ours could not extend 4 inches into a hole in the wood. The bones are there to stiffen the tongue, and allow it to enter the hole .

​

Here's a picture of the woodpecker's skull. Notice the bone we were talking about above, which leaves the back of the throat, [bottom of picture] curls round the back of the skull, round and down through the nostril, and into the tongue.

That is unique to the woodpecker - and is entirely necessary in order to stiffen the tongue for entry into the drilled hole.

It is unimaginable for such a structure, which folds up accordion-like when the tongue is retracted, to have evolved from anything.

Even if there are simpler hyoid bone structures, this most complex one is the one whose origin you need to account for.

Did mutations and natural selection produce this tool which is required for the bird to feed? And what happened while the hyoid was working its way from the back of the neck, up round the skull, out into the nostril, and down into the tongue? Did it starve to death?

That's a very complicated route and process. Did it so move by accident, or by design?

Further, the bird is immune to the ant poisons. Did many die off before one suddenly acquired the necessary immunity by a non-evolvable process? What do you think?

Already had them. All sorts of birds peck at things. And in crumbling wood, it's easy to pick out insects.

"Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?"

Note the unique feet of woodies. Two toes point foward, and two point backwards. Zygodactyly, is the name. Every other tree bird has 3 toes pointing forward, and one pointing backwards.

These feet are unique to the birds. Woodpeckers are the ONLY group of birds with this kind of feet. And why? To stabilise them as they hang on the tree trunk. Evolution? How?

I'm afraid that this is another creature imparting another death-blow to evolution.

Tough luck Barbarian.

 

[cupid dave]

[FONT=&quot]
Those are the ones we're discussing, remember?

Now back to reality. Where did their abilities come from?

Your 'adapted' is really a synonym for either 'I don't know where this came from', or 'that's how they were made in the first place'.

Imagine, you're woodpecker No 1. Or rather, you're going to become W1. But you've never pecked a hole in any kind of wood in your life. You haven't a clue that there are insect grubs in there.

Now why would you start pecking at what looks like solid wood? And supposing you did find out that it's a good plan. How do your children find out? Remember, Lamarckism is dead. Info acquired cannot be inherited.

So no evolution is possible.

And do they start pecking at harder and harder wood till they either break their beaks, or bash their brains out? Or what?

Next guess please. [/FONT]

And so what?

I'm not sure what this proves. We are discussing hardwood woodpeckers. The fact that there are lesser woodpeckers means nothing at all, except that you now have to explain how they too originated.

Did they evolve into hardwood WPs, or did the hardwoods degenerate into non-hardwoods?

Incidentally, you may be interested to hear about the woodpecker's tongue - an amazing organ, which could simply not have evolved from any inferior tongues. Here:



Ever seen a picture of the woodpecker's tongue? Here:

​

Notice the unevolvable.

The barbs are there, so that when the spearhead enters the tissue of the grub, the grub cannot get away - like the barbs on a hook.

The hook is clearly designed (no DNA evidence needed!). What about the barbs on the WP's tongue?

You note that starvation would occur in this feeding situation, if the barbs were absent, since the grub would merely slip off the tongue four inches into the wood! Extinction.

Interestingly, the longest tongue in the bird kingdom is the wryneck woodpecker's, which is about 0.66x the bird's body length. Some woodies' tongues are 4 to 5 inches long. Coincidence? Evolution? Nonsense - they were designed that way.

Here's hiltonpond with some more amazing facts:

Within the entire length of woodpecker's tongue lies the "hyoid apparatus," a linear series of tiny bones sheathed in muscles and soft tissue; the ultra-thin hyoid bones, which fold up accordion-like along part of their length, are visible in the photo below right.

You observe: a long entirely flexible tongue like ours could not extend 4 inches into a hole in the wood. The bones are there to stiffen the tongue, and allow it to enter the hole .

​

Here's a picture of the woodpecker's skull. Notice the bone we were talking about above, which leaves the back of the throat, [bottom of picture] curls round the back of the skull, round and down through the nostril, and into the tongue.

That is unique to the woodpecker - and is entirely necessary in order to stiffen the tongue for entry into the drilled hole.

It is unimaginable for such a structure, which folds up accordion-like when the tongue is retracted, to have evolved from anything.

Even if there are simpler hyoid bone structures, this most complex one is the one whose origin you need to account for.

Did mutations and natural selection produce this tool which is required for the bird to feed? And what happened while the hyoid was working its way from the back of the neck, up round the skull, out into the nostril, and down into the tongue? Did it starve to death?

That's a very complicated route and process. Did it so move by accident, or by design?

Further, the bird is immune to the ant poisons. Did many die off before one suddenly acquired the necessary immunity by a non-evolvable process? What do you think?

"Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?"

Note the unique feet of woodies. Two toes point foward, and two point backwards. Zygodactyly, is the name. Every other tree bird has 3 toes pointing forward, and one pointing backwards.

These feet are unique to the birds. Woodpeckers are the ONLY group of birds with this kind of feet. And why? To stabilise them as they hang on the tree trunk. Evolution? How?

I'm afraid that this is another creature imparting another death-blow to evolution.

Tough luck Barbarian.

So miraculous and amazing as all this may be, is it your position that God created these animals individually, and unrelated to one another, Spontaneously Generating each independent of the previous creatures he had created?

Do you contend that each and every single species was a singualr Spointaneous Generation of a new life form, numbering 25 million just for beetles?

How does that compared in regard to "credibility/believability" to the evolutionists' theories that see God using previously created species to make adaptions and changes resulting in co-existing new creatures oiver time?

My own opinion is that either way, the observation of diversity and variety is so amazing that it is all close to a magical process hard to choose one way or the other.Andthe Bible does not say exactly HOW god did it.

 

[Sparkey]

Cupid Dave,

1> As far as I know, none here are Prophets. Why pretend this isn't the case? Do you say that you have been appointed to that Office?
2> Jesus said that He and His Father are One. Jesus chose to accept His Father's Purpose and acted on that choice, hence salvation usward.
3> "Bible-Thumping" was a phrase that I used while thinking about the action of woodpeckers who seek grubs. My point was that the Holy Spirit does the work, to some is given the task of planting seeds, and to others the task of harvesting. All will purify themselves in the Hope of Christ. Finding one's place is important, and absent the direct leading of the Holy Spirit, it seems good to try to get along, so that the King of Peace can reign in the hearts of the brothers and sisters here. We are not grub-seekers. Why pound our heads?

By the way, thank you for your reply even though it contained unsolicitated criticisms.
~Sparrow

 

[cupid dave]

Cupid Dave,

1> As far as I know, none here are Prophets. Why pretend this isn't the case? Do you say that you have been appointed to that Office?
2> Jesus said that He and His Father are One. Jesus chose to accept His Father's Purpose and acted on that choice, hence salvation usward.
3> "Bible-Thumping" was a phrase that I used while thinking about the action of woodpeckers who seek grubs. My point was that the Holy Spirit does the work, to some is given the task of planting seeds, and to others the task of harvesting. All will purify themselves in the Hope of Christ. Finding one's place is important, and absent the direct leading of the Holy Spirit, it seems good to try to get along, so that the King of Peace can reign in the hearts of the brothers and sisters here. We are not grub-seekers. Why pound our heads?

By the way, thank you for your reply even though it contained unsolicitated criticisms.
~Sparrow

People solicit for criticism?
Hmmm...

Indeed they must be rare here, but such openmindedness is admirable, indeed, if you have noticed it.

We differ on our understanding of the commandment to preach the gospel over all the world, which you confuse with doing the job of convincing people to accept Christ.
I believe that it is exactly the case, that by not bible banging, that is all good christians need do for the evil of rampant sexual promiscuity in America to prevail.

In regard to prophets, they abound today, and indeed, "have been appointed to that Office" by Joel etal:


Acts 2:17
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

But more to my point, that commentary is the real vehicle for theology, and for the elucidation of both what the bible says and what the diverse and many private church/denominational interpretations have been promoting in society.

 

[Sparkey]

I agree, we don't see things eye to eye. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

 

[Barbarian]

Those are the ones we're discussing, remember?

Now back to reality. Where did their abilities come from?

As you learned, birds that are not woodpeckers (but are genetically very close to them) also hunt for insects in rotting wood. So that was there before woodpeckers evolved.

Your 'adapted' is really a synonym for either 'I don't know where this came from', or 'that's how they were made in the first place'.

Nope. For example, the shock absorber of the hardwood-excavating speces, is present in a very simple form in flickers, who don't excavate wood at all.

Imagine, you're woodpecker No 1. Or rather, you're going to become W1. But you've never pecked a hole in any kind of wood in your life. You haven't a clue that there are insect grubs in there.

If you've been finding insects in rotting wood and under loose bark, I think you would.

Now why would you start pecking at what looks like solid wood?

The evidence shows that the woodpeckers went from searching through crumbling wood, to dead wood on trees. A sturdier bird would be selected for, and of course, that would allow them to work on stronger wood.

And do they start pecking at harder and harder wood till they either break their beaks, or bash their brains out? Or what?

Random mutation and natural selection. As you learned, this, along with the genetic and transitional data, shows that it's really not a surprising thing that woodpeckers evolved gradually to harder and harder wood.

So the evidence says. Piculets differ from true woodpeckers in several ways, but have the same arthropod-hunting habits as flickers. Barbulets are even more distantly related, but seek insects in the crevices of trees and fallen logs. This has been confirmed by DNA analysis, which as you know, is testable, since we can confirm it works by testing organisms of known descent.

I'm not sure what this proves.

I know you don't. But of course, it demonstrates a gradual transition from birds that opportunistically searched rotting wood, to birds that excavated soft wood, to the very evolved hardwood-excavating woodpeckers.

We are discussing hardwood woodpeckers.

And now you're learning how they evolved.

Incidentally, you may be interested to hear about the woodpecker's tongue - an amazing organ, which could simply not have evolved from any inferior tongues. Here:

"There is a very curious gradation in the degree of elongation of the horns of the hyoid bone in the different American Woodpeckers, some of which consequently have the power of thrusting out their tongue to a much greater extent than others. Thus: In Picus varius [Yellow-bellied Sapsucker], the tips of the horns of the hyoid bone reach only to the upper edge of the cerebellum, or the middle of the occipital region. In Picus pubescens, they do not proceed farther forward than opposite to the centre of the eye. In Picus principalis, they reach to a little before the anterior edge of the orbit, or the distance of 1/2 inch from the right nostril. In Picus pileatus, they extend to half-way between the anterior edge of the orbit and the nostril. In Picus erythrocephalus, they reach to 3 twelfths of an inch from the base of the bill. In Picus tridactylus, they reach the base of the ridge of the upper mandible. In Picus auratus [Nothern Flicker] , they attain the base of the right nasal membrane. In Picus canadensis, they curve round the right orbit to opposite the middle of the eye beneath. Lastly, in Picus villosus, they receive the maximum of their development, and, as represented in the accompanying figures, curve round the right orbit, so as to reach the level of the posterior angle of the eye." James Audubon

Piculets, BTW, are not woodpeckers, but have similar barbed tongues. And not all woodpeckers have barbed tongues. Surprise.

Often extending five times farther than the beak itself, the tongue is so thin that it can reach into ants’ nests in trees. The tongue is also sticky, so it catches the ants and pulls them directly into the woodpecker’s mouth. The tongue’s adhesive, however, does not prevent the woodpecker from eating.

The saliva on your tongue is sticky, too. So you claim it's impossible for a woodpecker to have such saliva?

Notice the unevolvable.

Show us how that can't evolve, given that some woodpeckers have evolved it, and others haven't.

You note that starvation would occur in this feeding situation, if the barbs were absent, since the grub would merely slip off the tongue four inches into the wood! Extinction.

But as you learned, some woodpeckers get along fine without those barbs. Because they have slightly different way of getting to their prey. Surprise, again.

Interestingly, the longest tongue in the bird kingdom is the wryneck woodpecker's, which is about 0.66x the bird's body length.

The wrynecks (genus Jynx) are a small but distinctive group of small Old World woodpeckers.

Like the true woodpeckers, wrynecks have large heads, long tongues which they use to extract their insect prey and zygodactyl feet, with two toes pointing forward, and two backwards. However, they lack the stiff tail feathers that the true woodpeckers use when climbing trees, so they are more likely than their relatives to perch on a branch rather than an upright trunk.

Their bills are shorter and less dagger-like than in the true woodpeckers, but their chief prey is ants and other insects, which they find in decaying wood or almost bare soil. They re-use woodpecker holes for nesting, rather than making their own holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wryneck

Related to true woodpeckers, they are more like flickers in their habits. Surprise, again.

Here's a picture of the woodpecker's skull. Notice the bone we were talking about above, which leaves the back of the throat, [bottom of picture] curls round the back of the skull, round and down through the nostril, and into the tongue.

That is unique to the woodpecker - and is entirely necessary in order to stiffen the tongue for entry into the drilled hole.

But completely unnecessary for less evolved woodpeckers which excavate rotting wood, or pry under loose bark.

It is unimaginable for such a structure, which folds up accordion-like when the tongue is retracted, to have evolved from anything.

As you learned, young red-headed woodpeckers have very short hyoids, like chickens. Only later do they develop into longer structures. It seems completely foolish to allow that such structures can develop in an individual and deny that it can develop over time in many individuals.

Even if there are simpler hyoid bone structures, this most complex one is the one whose origin you need to account for.

You have one yourself.

Did mutations and natural selection produce this tool which is required for the bird to feed? And what happened while the hyoid was working its way from the back of the neck, up round the skull, out into the nostril, and down into the tongue? Did it starve to death?

See Audubon's comments. Surprise.

Further, the bird is immune to the ant poisons. Did many die off before one suddenly acquired the necessary immunity by a non-evolvable process? What do you think?

Ant stings don't kill birds, unless they are unable to move. Even non-woodpeckers can eat ants with impunity.

Barbarian observes:
Already had them. All sorts of birds peck at things. And in crumbling wood, it's easy to pick out insects.

"Did the first woodpecker that pecked trees do so because it ran out of worms on the ground and then decided to look for worms in trees? If so, how did the woodpecker know that it needed to evolve a highly specialized beak, tongue, set of feathers, and skull, as well as a claw structure, which had to be different from every other claw structure on Earth? And what scientific behavioral measures did it take to initiate evolution?"

As you learned, there are many transitional woodpeckers. Only a few species do what you're thinking about. And the rest are somewhere along the line of variation.

Note the unique feet of woodies. Two toes point foward, and two point backwards. Zygodactyly, is the name. Every other tree bird has 3 toes pointing forward, and one pointing backwards.

Picidae. Woodpeckers. Small to medium-large arboreal birds with a stout, chisel-like bill and stiff rectrices in typical woodpeckers. Toes zygodactyl 2-2, a few species lack a hallux. The backwards toes may be directed laterally or forward when climbing a vertical treetrunk.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/seg452/wwwseg452/VNH/Birds_F07.pdf?uniq=-34dovi

Surprise. Remember when I told you what you didn't know could hurt you?

These feet are unique to the birds. Woodpeckers are the ONLY group of birds with this kind of feet.

Zygodactyl foot has two toes facing forward and two facing backward. This is the second most common toe arrangement in perching birds. It is found in the osprey (Family Pandionidae) , most woodpeckers (Family Picidae), owls (Order Strigiformes), cuckoos, parrots, mousebirds, and some swifts.
http://monarchbfly.com/2007/12/09/birds_toe_arrangement/

This owl lives across the street from me in some woods near a pond. Note the feet. Zygodactyl.

Not your day, is it, Async. Let me let you in on something. I first encounted this story you're peddling, about 19 years ago. So it's not hard to put it in the dumpster one more time.

I'm afraid that this is another creature imparting another death-blow to evolution.

Surprise. One more time. You know, if you would think up some of your own, instead of copying stuff we already know how to dispose of, it might at least make us work for it.

Count up the declarations you've made, that are demonstrably wrong. At very least, before you cut and past another disaster, why not do a little research on your own?

 

[cupid dave]

I agree, we don't see things eye to eye. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

ASounds civilized and oh so "christian" in the present paradigm of love, peace, and be nice, nice, but the real social change was precipitated by the martyrs who stood up in the face of the reaction to what they preached.

What I mean, is that although pacifism was the tone of the Civil Rights Movement of Rev Martin Luther King, and peacemaking was the Ends to that Means, they made waves, big waves that washed over the whole society.

I do not believe that Christianity will survive if it is silent, and can not avoid the bloodshed that comes with positive social change.


Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.