As we study God’s world, new scientific discoveries sometimes change what we thought we knew. Can we still explain these changes with our understanding of God’s design?
Continue reading...
Continue reading...
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
[__ Science __ ] What We Knew About the Woodpecker
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
There actually isn't such a bird as "the woodpecker." There are many different kinds of woodpeckers, each with their own adaptations, some with transitional forms of those with more advanced adaptations. Entire books have been written on how these adaptations have evolved, with most of them still existing in various species.
digitallibrary.amnh.org
Not all woodpeckers have zygotactyl toes. Not all of them have super long tongues. Not all of them excavate hard wood. And most of these adaptions have all sorts of transitional forms in different species.
The evolution of terrestrial woodpeckers. American Museum novitates ; no. 2467
"Woodpeckers are very specialized for arboreal life. Despite their specializations for climbing, nesting, and foraging in trees, more than 12 species forage regularly on the ground and three are essentially terrestrial. Terrestriality has evolved as a secondary feature, and aspects of...
digitallibrary.amnh.org
Not all woodpeckers have zygotactyl toes. Not all of them have super long tongues. Not all of them excavate hard wood. And most of these adaptions have all sorts of transitional forms in different species.
How many taxonomic families of woodpeckers were there in 1980?
Then in 2000?
Then in 2024?
Barbarian
Member
True woodpeckers are placed in the subfamily Picinae. There are four other subfamilies of the Picidae, each of which has varying transitional characteristics of true woodpeckers.
An ancient member of the larger group has been discovered.
Woodpecker fossil from 200,000 years ago found in 'staggering' condition
The fossil was found preserved in rock in a stone quarry, and is now on display in a local museum.
www.newsweek.com
Seems related to the colaptes, which is a semi-woodpecker, with some, but not all the adaptations of the Picidae.
Seeing as AIG is willing to admit the evolution of new species and genera, I would think they'd be willing to grant the evolution of all those birds from a common ancestor, as well as the evolution of those adaptions found in the most evolved woodpeckers.
Ah, so its a SUB family, not a whole one.
Barbarian
Member
Yep. So all those adaptations that AIG so breathlessly assures us could not evolve, by their own standards,(:shock) evolved.
The capability was coded into the genes of the first woodpeckers already. And the feature was passed down. It didn't "just evolve".
Barbarian
Member
Nope. The first pair of woodpeckers would have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet woodpeckers today have hundreds of such alleles for most genes. The rest evolved. And so all the adaptations that AIG claimed could not have evolved, must have evolved, according to their own doctrines.
Within the same family, which they seem to regard as the basis of "kind."
Why?
Creatures then were a lot better than now. Genetic entropy. Reduction not progress.
Barbarian
Member
The first pair of woodpeckers would have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus.
Because animals only have two sets of chromosomes. All the other allleles evolved over time. Notice that AIG now concedes the evolution of new species and genera. Where they messed up here was in failing to realize that all these evolved woodpeckers were in a single subfamily, and therefore according to their own assumptions, evolved all those variations.
Perhaps you don't know what "genetic entropy" means. What do you think it is?
In this case, your assumption makes no sense at all. Each of the woodpeckers has evolved adaptations that are very useful and effective for its particular circumstances. Why wouldn't it be? God have living things the capacity to evolve new species and adaptations to fit their environments. Even AIG admits that much.
Applying the present post-flood creatures and how they work to the past.
But they are still woodpeckers. And they will have less genetic info than their parents. Evolution where?
Again, original diversity, not just poof! evolve .
It's one of the best arguments against family-to-family evolution.
Reduction in general. Genes.
Like how the bacteria sacrifices its parts to survive antibiotic. Evolution is supposed to "put something on" the bacteria, not strip stuff off!
------
If a fly loses its genes for wings, and its winglessness helps it survive a predator, then it was a helpful downgrade in THAT circumstance, but still a downgrade.
There are many "net zeros". DNA is resilient!
Living things's DNA can express longer or shorter body features. It's not a grand "evolution". If i grow 2 inches taller in 17 months, is that "evolution"?
Why are you extrapolating adaptation and speciation to be evolution?
“How many ‘races’ are there?” I once asked this question in a jail where I was ministering. I was going to immediately give the inmates an answer (i.e., it was a rhetorical question of sorts), but they insisted on trying to work it out and were totally engaged in the subject. So, in my lecture, I stopped and gave them some time to work it out. After about a minute or so of working together, they concluded that there were about 20–30 “races.”
I said, “Nope, there is only one race—the human race.” I knew this would be a shock to them because they were taught the same religion I was taught in public schools—a Darwinian evolutionary worldview, which is a form of secular humanism1 based on atheism (i.e., no God), materialism (matter and energy are all that exist; nothing immaterial, like God, exists), naturalism (nature is all that exists, no spiritual realm or supernatural), and so forth.
But according to God’s Word, there is one race: Adam’s race, which is also called the “human race,” “race of man,” or simply “mankind.” We are all descendants of Adam and Eve—the first man and woman (1 Corinthians 15:45–47; Genesis 3:20). This means we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27, 9:6) and have eternal value because we are made in the likeness of our eternal God. It also means we are all related and are all part of that singular human race.
I said, “Nope, there is only one race—the human race.” I knew this would be a shock to them because they were taught the same religion I was taught in public schools—a Darwinian evolutionary worldview, which is a form of secular humanism1 based on atheism (i.e., no God), materialism (matter and energy are all that exist; nothing immaterial, like God, exists), naturalism (nature is all that exists, no spiritual realm or supernatural), and so forth.
But according to God’s Word, there is one race: Adam’s race, which is also called the “human race,” “race of man,” or simply “mankind.” We are all descendants of Adam and Eve—the first man and woman (1 Corinthians 15:45–47; Genesis 3:20). This means we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27, 9:6) and have eternal value because we are made in the likeness of our eternal God. It also means we are all related and are all part of that singular human race.
Barbarian
Member
If the first woodpeckers didn't have two chromosomes apiece they would be not merely different species, they'd be different kingdoms. Which means that there would have been far more evolution to today's woodpeckers than the evidence indicates. Rock and a hard place.
Sorry, that's wrong. Perhaps you don't know how to calculate genetic information. How do you think that's determined?
Sorry, that's not possible unless you think the original woodpeckers were a very different kind of life than today's birds. My dad used to tell me that every story I made up to cover myself, meant I'd have to make up two more to cover for it. Better to just go with the evidence and scripture as it is.
Perhaps you don't know what "genetic entropy" means. What do you think it is?
So if you don't even know what it is, why are you talking about it? Be honest now. Someone told you about it and used that as a buzz word, and you have no idea what it is, or even how it might be measured. It's very obvious.
Each of the woodpeckers has evolved adaptations that are very useful and effective for its particular circumstances.
No, those are new alleles. Every new mutation adds genetic information to a population. Would you like to learn how we can measure it?
What "parts" do you think bacteria sacrifice to survive antibiotic? In fact, a very common mode in the evolution of antibiotic resistance is by addition of genetic material:
Published: 10 July 2023
Plasmids, a molecular cornerstone of antimicrobial resistance in the One Health era
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a substantial threat to human health. The widespread prevalence of AMR is, in part, due to the horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), typically mediated by plasmids.So you think humans are "downgraded" from primitive primates? Seriously? "Downgraded" is not a part of evolution. Losing functional tails is neither an upgrade nor a downgrade. Nothing counts except in terms of environment and selection.
Evolution is about the genetic changes in populations. Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.
God has given living things the capacity to evolve new species and adaptations to fit their environments.
You're still confusing adaptation and evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Adaptation is a change that benefits organisms. Not all evolution is adaptation and not all adaptation is evoluiton. Try to remember this.
Barbarian
Member
That's kind of the way it is in places like Brazil. Genetics has shown that there are no biological human races today. Race has become a cultural construct, with no biological reality.
Creationists like YE ICR founder Henry Morris wrote about the supposed genetic inferiority of blacks and others. Creationist Louis Agassiz thought that black people were not descendants of Adam and Eve. Hitler assumed that "Aryans"were somehow a unique race, even though German Jews were genetically more like other Germans than they were like Jews in other nations.
As I said earlier, many, if not most, YE creationists have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism.
Do you think Neanderthals were descendants of Adam and Eve? If so, you are saying that there were different human races at one time. Which isn't remarkable, or contrary to scripture.
You mean the gender chromosones?
Why would the children of woodpeckers 'evolve' into non-woodpeckers? (like dinosaurs 'evolving' into non-dinosaurs, called birds) Woodpeckers turn into woodpeckers.
Oh, so you admit there wasn't evolution there. Ok
Woodpeckers have been the same kind since the day birds were made.
Do you think that today's woodpeckers acquired a new trait? (NOT merely a change in an existing one, or duplicate of existing one, like length of a beak, extra head, etc., it has to be like an evolving arm or leg that was never originally coded in its parents.)
An allele is a variant form of a gene. So yes, genes.
It makes the genes different. And mutations are editions in otherwise non-mutated genes
Barbarian
Member
No. Every animal has two sets of chromosomes.
The problem AIG has, that all these adaptations evolved within one family of birds. All of them are woodpeckers or closely-related species. But each of them evolved their own adaptations to fit their needs. And yet, AIG is surprised by all the variation that evolved within a single family (which by their admission would be a single "kind" )
(suggestion that all those new alleles were present in just two birds)
Sorry, that's not possible unless you think the original woodpeckers were a very different kind of life than today's birds. My dad used to tell me that every story I made up to cover myself, meant I'd have to make up two more to cover for it. Better to just go with the evidence and scripture as it is.
I just showed you that all those new alleles evolved.
What "parts" do you think bacteria sacrifice to survive antibiotic? In fact, a very common mode in the evolution of antibiotic resistance is by addition of genetic material:
Published: 10 July 2023
Plasmids, a molecular cornerstone of antimicrobial resistance in the One Health era
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a substantial threat to human health. The widespread prevalence of AMR is, in part, due to the horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), typically mediated by plasmids.No, that's wrong. For example, humans lack cervical ribs. Evolution often simplifies things when it's advantageous to do so.
There are many, many such alleles that evolved that way. You've been misinformed about the way evolution works.
If a gene is mutated, by definition, it can't be non-mutated. And each new mutation adds information to the population. This is why different species of woodpecker evolved different adaptation.
BTW, you were going to tell us what you think "genetic entropy" is. What do you think it is?
Your post would is also writing about it, so there goes that argument.
Writing about something does not inherently involve supporting or believeing something.
And i think i showed that you admitted otherwise.
From EXISTING outside sources!
So material was added to it - but it didn't make it itself (evolve) - it TOOK PRE-existing dna!!
How can you call a tree grabbing a branch and glueing the branch to itself with Elmer's Glue "growing" a branch?? How can you call non-evolution evolution?
Which of your definitions of evolution? Alleles change, speciation, or family-to-family? Or a fourth one?
This is a bold incorrect statement. Heard of "deletion mutations"?
Besides, most of them are 1. silent. 2. destructive.
Deletion - National Human Genome Research Institute
Now you'll likely say, "Loss is Gain".
Sounding like a YEC already!
How do you know that the sets didn't have more information than they do today?
The information has gotten smaller on average over time.
Eventually, everything will be unable to reproduce and die out just by genetic weardown. That is, if God lets that much time pass, and He doesn't end the world before then.
Oh, and this fact is a great bulwark against belief in millions of years.