IMO Charley seems to know very little about evolution, judging from the video.
I'm assuming you liked this video, since you put it on your site.
I'm guessing you liked it because it made a case that woodpecker evolution was impossible for very simple common sense reasons, and that anyone who thought that woodpeckers could have evolved from other types of birds must be foolish.
I would have guessed that if a strong case were presented for how the woodpecker could have evolved, creationist supporters would just say that it was still a bird, still in the bird 'kind', and that evolution of the woodpecker from some other ancestral bird species would count as micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Some creationist sites say that they accept micro-evolution. So my guess would be that even a strong case for woodpecker evolution would not be a problem for creationists. If this seems reasonable to you, then it means that your commitment to creationism is in no danger whether you think the woodpecker was a result of special creation or whether you found the evidence reasonable that the woodpecker evolved.
So when you watched Charley, I wonder if you thought about whether his humorous scenario was all there was to know about woodpecker evolution. I wonder if you thought about whether there might be other common sense ways that you could imagine woodpeckers having evolved those features. I wonder if it occurred to you that maybe evolutionary scientists or ornithologists actually had some explanations for how these steps might have happened without being immediately fatal. I wonder if you considered whether some of the unique features of the most specialized woodpecker species also occurred in less specialized ways in other related species, or in fossils. I wonder if you did some reading in books or online about woodpecker evolution. I wonder if you checked on talk-origins to see if they had a reaction to this particular creationist argument.
Yes I have done some studying on the woodpecker and have seen many videos and teachings on them - nothing intensive but I have come to the conclusion after learning all that the Woodpecker could do that it is definitely "Irreducibly Complex" Now I'm sure your very familiar with that term. As you can see you have very much the "chicken and the egg" problem when considering God's wonderful creation, the woodpecker. In other words, the species has to be able to survive as it develops one attribute at a time. For example, a woodpecker without a long tongue could drill a hole but then would starve. How do you live with one and not the other? Have you truly studied the woodpecker as you say you have and come to the conclusion that it evolved all the necessary components required to survive? If that is so, why would the woodpecker decide to even do that? Why not just swoop down and eat small bugs off of leaves or the ground? Why try to chase bugs hidden in trees?
Why don't you look where the evidence leads you? This animal could not have evolved. God would’ve had to create the woodpecker with all these attributes in place at one time or it would not have survived as a species.
And I'm very familiar with talk origins' website. I find it funny how every single person I debate or discuss these things with "always" refers me to that site and that site only. I was reading an interesting article on their the other day called "proof of evolution" or "evidence of evolution" or something close to that effect, sorry but the title has escaped me for now. In any event the articled was fluttered and peppered with words like "we think that" and "it probably happened" "it most likely did it this way...." "It could of...." and so on. I could not find "undisputable" proof of evolution.
In addition I'm sure you are more than welcome to email or comment "Charlie" if you feel his teaching on the woodpecker is inaccurate.
I'm starting to read about woodpeckers, but I may lose interest.
Meanwhile: the reason people refer other people to the talk-origins site is because it's a good collection of sources about evolution and specific examples of creationist arguments. So it is often a good place to start when looking into a creationist argument. I hope you did read their section on woodpeckers.
You think (and Charley thinks) that woodpeckers are irreducibly complex, but I'm sure you also know evolutionary biologists don't agree with you. I guess if I keep trying to read about woodpeckers I'd look for information on where the different woodpecker traits show up in different species. Are there examples where the different traits show up by themselves? And are there examples where two traits partially occurred together, like length of beak and length of tongue? What woodpeckers had the tongue barbs? Etc.
I'm still reading about woodpeckers. For me there is too much information that's new to me and also not enough information at the same time. I'm not getting very far. I did read that other birds have the same toe arrangement -two front, two back - that woodpeckers have (owls & parrots, also wrynecks). Hummingbirds also have long tongues with hyoid bones that extend over their skulls. Other birds hammer on things: jays hammer on nuts; chickadees hammer on sunflower seeds; oystercatchers hammer on mollusk shells. Brown creepers and nuthatches and chickadees eat insects off of tree bark and they have smaller beaks and 3-front, one-back toes. Woodpeckers can eta other things besides grubs in the bark; flickers eat worms and insects from the ground. Woodpeckers could eat insects off the outside of the bark as well as under the bark - and also things like seeds and fruit. Wrynecks are considered to be close relatives of woodpeckers. According to wikipedia they have the zygodactyl toes and long tongues, but their bills are shorter than woodpecker bills and they don't have the stiffened tail feathers. So it sounds like all those features that Charley talked about don't have to happen simultaneously: they are not irreducibly complex. The idea of evolution is not that a bird is born one day with a huge beak and nothing else to go with it. The idea is that the bird might have a slightly larger beak, and they might have access to a different group of insects. And then of those birds, the ones whose tongues are a bit longer do better. (Or vice versa, with a longer tongue and then a stronger beak. The features develop over time, together, not in isolation from each other. (Some features having to do with the same structure might be linked in development.) I haven't found anything about about ths 'glue' and the stuff Charley says releases the 'glue'. The 'glue' must be mucousy saliva, and it would be washed off by the more liquidy saliva. Some birds do use saliva for other things, like some swallows making nests. Again, having sticky saliva is not a unique feature, and it isn't a big change from what a bird naturally has, just a variation.
I am still trying to read up on the woodpeckers. If you have any sites that you think are particularly helpul, you could post a link.
Hello, Joe. I took your suggestion and emailed Charley to ask about the sticky stuff on the woodpecker's tongue and the other stuff that dissolved it. I asked for links or references. So far no response. I did say I didn't agree with his views, which seemed only fair, but I didn't argue at all. So maybe that's why he didn't answer, or maybe it's not. Maybe he has been so swamped with responses to his videos that he no longer answers questions. Or maybe he has just been too busy lately. Or maybe he doesn't have a good answer. If you have a link or reference about the tongue and saliva and hyoid bone, I hope you will post it. I haven't read anything new, but I decided to look up the chameleon tongue, since by evolutionary theory, birds would have some relation to reptiles.
Meanwhile I looked at some of your links. I think I'd be better off staying away from the Creation-Evolution Headlines link. It had the same effect on my brain as when you scoop up too much hot Chinese mustard on your egg roll, and for a few minutes you think the top of your forehead is going to melt.
Ummm... wow, the logic in the video has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer. That guy assumes that evolution is always shooting for a single outcome. Evolution does not work that way. Each of those specialized characteristics of a wood pecker could have provided the bird with different advantages over the years... each developing independently, and each for different purposes until one day one of those birds found a new application for all those specialized skills and then evolution continued to refine them until it reached what we see today.
Micro evolution is a mute point Joe. Why do you post stuff like this which is misleading? Micro evolution is a proven process that happens. Look at the history of the pet dog over the last couple hundred years. ... the evidence for Micro evolution is clear and plain to see.
Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution.
Hahahaha...... My good friend Pedro is back again. Hey buddy... It's been a while. Welcome back.
Well honestly I think if your suggesting this magnificent bird developed each of the traits we now see over millions of years, you threw logic and reasoning out the door a long time ago. Pedro, you have the chicken and the egg argument here. One component could not have existed without the other for the woodpecker to survive and eat the way it does today. I don't claim to be a woodpecker expert but I do know that many evolutionist struggle to wonder how this bird could have evolved since it needs all components to be present at once for these traits to work. This bird is iriducibly complex, it cannot be broken down any more into a simple form without getting rid of something and in so nothing working at all. One cannot work without the other. So your woodpecker anatomy is a little off when you said "each developing independently, and each for different purposes until one day one of those birds found a new application for all those specialized skills...." This is just one animal that I can point to you that the evolutionary "theory" cannot account for. Once again I have to say that you are compromising God's word. You can't have it both ways. Either it evolved or God created it like he said he did on day five:
"20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."
I would truly love to know where you got millions of years from this statement from the creator who was present when he did it all? I would also like to know why God would call this "very good" if it had to die and mutate over millions of years first before comming to what we now see? Especially when the bible said there was no death yet.
Pedro, If you never heard of God or Jesus before and I were to give you the bible in hand for the first time ever and locked you in a room for three weeks and asked you to read the entire thing, do you think you would come out thinking that Genesis referred to millions of years or six literal 24 hr days? Hence the "morning and evening". This isn't a trick question. I'm trying to point out that you received the "millions of years" theology from mans fallible arguments not God's infallible word. I by no means am saying I dislike science, ask my family, I love it. True science interpreted correctly points to God. But science text books change their theories and facts around every year were the bible has remained the same since it was divinely breathed into man to write it down over a period of 1400-1600 years by 40 different authors on three different continents. The bible is not a science book but when it touches on science it is scientifically accurate. No other book does this, let alone predict the future (prophecy accurately). Not the book of Mormons, not the Quran and not any of the other "holy writings" which speak of things that are unscientific. (not to be confused with supernatural) I would be more than happy to share these with you.
By the way since Evolution is a "fact" do you mind answering some questions? You should have no problem if evolution is true. It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (spontaneous generation) didn't work years and years ago but man still wants to believe it. And for the record I already told you that I believe in "micro" evolution though I wouldn't call it that. It should be better referred to as "variation within a species" And I believe that this occurs because it's able to be observed, tested, repeated and demonstrated unlike your man to molecules teaching that macro evolution can be accounted for based on what you see during micro evolution. Macro evolution is a huge stretch of the imagination. You said so your self "look at the dog....." Exactly Pedro. Look at the dog. over thousands of years there have been many many "variations" of dog, hundreds of them. But have you noticed something? THEY ALL LOOK LIKE DOGS!!! They all have tails and four legs etc... Have you ever witnessed a dog produce a non dog? See where your faith lies? You have not seen macro evolution, it cant be proven in a lab or demonstrated in anyway and the so called proof for evolution is a handful of bones that can fit into ONE coffin and are all disputable. Yet you believe it? How did we get the Bear from these dogs? The Polar Bear? The Giraffe? The Elephant? The Whale? All while the preceding animals still remain? It's not in the genetic code Pedro. You will never ever in two trillion years, should God allow it, develop wings because it's not written in your genetic code. Nor have we ever ever witnessed anyone or anything develop new code in the genome. We only see a scrambling of an already existing code (mutations). You will never produce Chinese books using the English alphabet Pedro no matter how much you scramble the letters around.
Can I ask another question? Since we are followers of Jesus - it's worth taking note that Jesus quoted and took the old testament "literally" If we are followers of Jesus Christ shouldn't we take it literally also? Pedro why is it that Jesus spoke of Genesis/Creation as a real literal event but you think it's an allegory of some sort for millions of years? (Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6 - note the word "beginning" as Jesus used it, not the "end" of creation which would have had to be if millions of years occurred first.)
Questions for Evo's - (Taken from Dr. Kent Hovind and CSE)
1. Where did the space for the universe come from if the Big Bang were true?
2. Where did matter come from? If it can neither be created nor destroyed how could evolution account for this? (1st Law of Thermo Dynamics) 3. How did the matter get so perfectly organized?
4. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? and why would it even do that? 5. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? what are the chances of two of anything developing the necessary reproductive parts to fit with each other. The odds are astronomical. If you say it was A sexual then I would ask why did it feel the need to reproduce? This defies "survival of the fittest" as stated in the next question.
6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? doesn't sound like "natural selection" to me. How do you explain this?
7. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books)
8. When, where, why, how, and from what did: Whales evolve? Sea horses evolve? Bats evolve? Eyes evolve? Ears evolve? and.......
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc....evolve? Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others?) -------> Hence the Woodpecker The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc...?) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The Termite or the flagella in it's intestines that actually digest the cellulose? The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? the immune system or the need for it?
Some Cosmology: Referring to the so called Big Bang Theory-
9. The Planetary Collision Theory says our world collided with a small planet, producing our moon. but such an Impact would totally destroy our planet. How could such an impact produce a circling moon? This would have had to be repeated for all 60 moons in our solar system. The theory would require thousands of planets passing through our solar system for enough direct hits to produce all our moons. Why are not such fly byes occurring today? 10. The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. This shape defies explanation by the laws of physics. Island universes should not have their highly coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement. The stars should all fly apart. Each galaxy is a carefully organized city in the sky. Can you explain this from an evolutionary standpoint?
11. Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons. Can you explain this?
12. Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it. ?????? My brain is frying man, help me out here...
13. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circling that we find in the orbits of the suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balances not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers- or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no" first generation" (population 1) stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at lest one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits. ???????? Can you explain this?
Evolution could not do or explain this
Maybe you could explain this?:
The Mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. In May or June, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size about 3 feet deep and 6 feet long. then he fills is with vegetation. As it rots, it heats up. the bird waits patiently until the rains, which increase the heat to over 100º F at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92º F. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate; she lays one egg a day for 30 days, and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thermometer bill for 7 weeks. he cannot let the temperature go up or down even one degree. If it cools at night, he piles on more sand. If it overheats in the day, he pulls off sand. At hatching time, the chicks break their shells and crawl up through as much as 2 feet of sand! Arriving at the top, each one is fully able to fly and is on its own. Neither father or mother mallee bird gives it any further attention or training. when it grows up, it does just as it's parents did.
Another story:
Daniel Bernoulli was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulli's principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well. these little creatures admirably apply this principle in making their underground tunnel cities. The burrows have two openings--one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones. they work hard to make that second opening higher than the flat one on ground level. Having done this, the Bernoulli principle takes effect and nicely aerates their burrows with fresh air. Can evolution explain this?
another one:
Porpoises (bottle-nosed dolphins) never hurt humans, but crush vicious barracudas and kill deadly sharks. It is sonar (underwater radar) that enables them to successfully plan their attacks. With their high pitched squeaks, they can identify the type of fish, and measure its distance and size. Porpoises have a special region in their head which contains a specialized type of fat. Scientists call it their "melon", for that is it's shape. Because the speed of sound in the fatty melon is different than that of the rest of the body, this melon is used as a sound lens to collect sonar signals and interpret them to the brain. It focuses sound, just as a glass lens focuses light. The focused sound produces a small "sound picture" in the porpoise's mind showing it the unseen things ahead in the dark, murky water. It has been discovered that the composition of this fatty lens can be altered by the porpoise in order to change the sound speed through the melon and thus change the focus of the lens to accord with variational factors in the surrounding water! There is also evidence that the composition of fat varies in different parts of the melon. This technique of doublet lens (two glass lenses glued together) is used in optical lenses in order to overcome chromatic aberrations and produce high-quality light lenses. The porpoise appears to be using a similar principle for it's sound lens system! Can evolution explain that?
how about this one:
Try as they might, scientists cannot figure out how to make light without 94.5% of the energy being used as heat. But the firefly, Phontinus, makes light with 90% of the energy for that purpose. The glow of a firefly contains only 1/80,000 of the heat that would be produced by a candle flame of equal size. One scientists spent his lifetime studying the luciferin in fireflies, without success. Many other researchers have tackled the problem, and have also failed. The diving spider is a regular spider which breathes air but spends most of it's time under water. Diving under water with a bubble, and fastening it to vegetation, the spider uses it for air and a nest. The living and nesting habits of this spider are complex and amazing. As soon as the babies are born, they do their part in diving and helping the family.
Once again brother thanks for the comments and look forward to your reply.
P.S.
Pedro, during your quiet time with the Lord and when you are alone praying and reading his word, I urge you brother to ponder very very deeply the scripture I'm going to paste below and ask God to truly reveal to you the truth about his creation account - you are a sincere man so ask him sincerely what the truth is. The bible says to Seek Ask and Knock and the you will Find, Receive and the Door will be opened to you. (Matt 7:7) This scripture is a reference to the constant seeking of Gods truth and constant prayer as well.
Ponder this wonderful and yet frightful verse from God's word - 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
"So that men are without excuse" No man is without excuse in this complex universe God has produced. I can only think of one reason why man would want to explain God away by means of evolution and naturalism and that is not to be held accountable to a holy and righteous God
Joe
P.S.S. And another thing. Why are we even having this conversation based on your comment "Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution." ???
I didn't read your whole post yet because it is long! But IJWTS that it's way easier for me to read the black with a white background than the posts on your actual blog which are white or blue on a black background.
Two quick things. One: You said this: "I don't claim to be a woodpecker expert but I do know that many evolutionist struggle to wonder how this bird could have evolved since it needs all components to be present at once for these traits to work. " You say you KNOW that evolutionists (I would say evolutionary biologists) struggle with wondering how woodpeckers could have evolved etc,. Okay, then what are your sources for knowing that? I think you're wrong. I don't think evolutionary biologists have any problem with this at all. They may not know the exact details, but probably have some reasonable ideas. Really, the woodpecker didn't have to change 100% all at one time - that's not remotely how things are thought to evolve. (Maybe I'll post more later except that by now I've forgotten all the things I was reading about.)
Two: Evolution of the species is not the same thing as the origin of life (abiogenesis). You can talk about them both, but they are two different ideas and situations. You don't have to have had abiogenesis occur on earth for evolution to have occurred: aliens could have brought single cells to earth or God could have created single cells; it's what happened after the single cells appeared that was when evolution by natural selection occurred. But aside from that, Louis Pasteur did NOT disprove abiogenesis. His experiments were addressing a different question. He only looked at a very short term event, the observation that things like bacteria appeared repeatedly in unsterilized broth. Whatever you think about abiogenesis, you would be incorrect to think that Pasteur's experiments dealt with it. (That was the point of the Wald article that you mentioned below, with the false quote that was actually some creationist's paraphrase.)
Oh my! Do you realize you just wrote a 5 page paper covering 10 different topics I didn't even bring up? ... literally; 5 pages. :-) I love you brother. You just got to stick to a narrow topic area otherwise its pretty much impossible for us to have a productive discussion.
You said: ----------------- P.S.S. And another thing. Why are we even having this conversation based on your comment "Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution." ??? -----------------
I was asking myself the same question reading your post. :-) To answer your question, I am conseeding to the fact that science shows no proof of Macro evolution. There you go, I said it. :-) Any discussion of Macro evolution is pure speculation with little to no basis. You have convinced me of that.
Moving on. Regarding the woodpecker, I really can't comment any more than I already did without reading the research on the bird. Since I don't have time for that, I will have to leave our discussion at that. If you're right that its a chicken vs egg thing, then your right that God must have created the Woodpecker at a stage that is very close to what it is today.
Regarding Micro Evolution: Yes, you have stated in the past that you believed that is real and does exist. ... I disagree with your attempt to redefine it as "variation within species". It is not just variation. Its the combination of variation and natural selection, thus the use of the term "evolution" is a more accurate definition. But I do agree that the term "within species" is a better definition than the use of "Micro". ... So lets call it "evolution within species". This would be most accurate; don't you agree?
So let me ask you Joe, if you believe in Evolution Within Species, then where do you draw the line between what God created and what "could have" evolved-within-species? Would it be fair to say that many of the variations of animals we see today could have been a result of "Evolution Witin Species"... particularly considering the Great Flood? The Ark only contained a pair of animals of each "kind" and not every variation there-of correct? Where do you draw the line here?
Now remember, don't get carries away in your answer. Lets stick to a very narrow discussion of Evolution Within Species only. That will make it a more managable and productive discussion for both of us.
From your comment: "Daniel Bernoulli was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulli's principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well.... The burrows have two openings--one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones.... Can evolution explain this?"
Do you think this person meant that the prairie dogs literally understand Bernoulli's principle, and stand around doing physics equations when building their holes? Obviously they don't. They make their holes the way it works. I assume they make them that way by instinct, but I don't know - do you? It could be instinct modified by the learning from the other prairie dogs in their group. Why would they have started making them that way in the first place? Well, it seems to me that they're digging tunnels, and the dirt has to go somewhere, so it would make sense that they'd have dirt at one or more of their holes. Smoothing the dirt over might happen as a part of their running in and out, or maybe it helped to keep the tunnel entrance open if they firmed it up. Having mounds around the entrances might help to keep water out and give them a place to stand to look for predators. Maybe they piled the dirt on the first 'in' entrance in a different way from when they were pushing out the 'out' entrance, so the dirt mounds might automatically be formed a bit differently. (But I don't know any details of how they build their burrows, do you?) The prairie dogs that built one end (maybe the 'out' end?) a bit higher automatically may have had a better place to stand to see predators. How much difference would have been necessary to benefit from the better airflow. do you know? The better airflow, the longer the tunnels they could build. If you assume that the longer, better ventilated tunnel increases their chances to survive, then the prairie dogs which spend a bit more time building up one of their entrances will be selected for. That's how evolution is expected to work. (You already think that they build their burrows based on stored genetic info, don't you?)
Pedro, I hope I didn't just reject your comment. The "publish" and "reject" buttons were so close to each other. However, I think I got it back since I see it below.
Yes I know I got carried away with the answer :) Call it a summary if you will, hahaha. I only wrote all that stuff because I know exactly where your coming from and know what you believe. So call it "covering all basis" if you will. And remember, no matter how I answer you, you can reply as long or as short as you would like. I mostly do it for other readers coming across the blog that may have certain questions. It serves as a good reference at the very least. However, I agree it was a bit redundant. But honestly, I enjoyed typing it and it didn't feel like five pages at all :) As you know I also don't have time for replies like that, I just happen to have a little on my hands then.
As for "variation within a species" I would say I'm not "re"-defining it at all.. This is what many of the scientists who I read up on call it - (Dr. Ken Ham, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Kent & Eric Hovind, Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Terry Mortenson etc.....) I use this term because they use this term and they use this term because God said this when he said "kinds" in Genesis. God didn't say according to their "species", he said "kind" We have invented the word species so you can't go looking for it in 4,000 - 6,000 + year old scripture just as you won't find the word "Dinosaur" in the bible because the word was invented in the mid 1800's. I say this because people usually try to argue with a uniformitarian's attitude in that what we have today or see today has always been. So I will stick to saying variation within a species because although "natural selection occurs, it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term, only variation. But this is minor so I would say call it what you would like. I am usually always referring to "macro" in my arguments so.....
As far as where do I draw the line? I suppose I draw it where/when someone comes along with no evidence what so ever in their conclusion that one "kind" or "species" developed from a completely different one. Ex. The dog, cat, bear, giraffe and elephant had a common ancestor or developed from the same organism.
Now when I say "many" evolutionist I am referring to the numerous arguments I have heard or read in this on going debate between creation science and evolutionism. I have been studying this topic since shortly after becoming a Christian in the year 2001. Now are you asking me to go back and site every single source I have read or heard? Would you or could you do that? I would not say "they struggle with" understanding how this bird could have evolved if I have not heard their side of the argument or read evolutionists research paper's before (I often read a lot of what Richard Dawkins puts out and am subscribed to his blog - just to mention one evolutionist now). It's sort of hard to keep up with your comments because you are requesting for me to recount and supply you with all my sources and materials in which I use to study this topic. I simply don't have the time to do that. However, I will try to leave sources in my postings for you to eliminate the "guess work" of where I obtained the information.
In addition,
you said
"Two: Evolution of the species is not the same thing as the origin of life (abiogenesis). You can talk about them both, but they are two different ideas and situations. You don't have to have had abiogenesis occur on earth for evolution to have occurred: aliens could have brought single cells to earth or God could have created single cells; it's what happened after the single cells appeared that was when evolution by natural selection occurred. But aside from that, Louis Pasteur did NOT disprove abiogenesis. His experiments were addressing a different question. He only looked at a very short term event, the observation that things like bacteria appeared repeatedly in unsterilized broth. Whatever you think about abiogenesis, you would be incorrect to think that Pasteur's experiments dealt with it. (That was the point of the Wald article that you mentioned below, with the false quote that was actually some creationist's paraphrase.)"
This whole paragraph from you is extremely false and honestly very scrambled.
I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And your comment on Aliens shows me where your line of thinking is. Where is your source or evidence for thinking of "panspermia"? I'm sure you have heard the term right?
In addition, to say that you don't need abiogensis to have evolution is in direct contradiction. How can you have evolution or how can something even begin to evolve if it has not somehow come into existence first? Your asking me to forget about how evolutionist say something first appeared and go right to the evolving stages of it. I believe this to be a major cop out on the part of the evolutionist. The burden of proof is on you. You first need to explain (with evidence) how your first "organism" if you will, came into existence then you can try to explain to me how it evolved. I suggest before you try explaining how that first organism came into existence you read the book "Icons of Evolution" or do some research on the Miller Urey experiment.
That's fine that usually you discuss Macro Evolution when you debate, however, that shouldn't make you incapable of discussing Micro Evolution; correct?
First, let me point out that it is totally irrelivant that the word evolution was invented recently. Who cares? What's important is what it means. If a word, better defines a process, then it does not matter when it was invented.
You said: --------------------------------- So I will stick to saying variation within a species because although "natural selection occurs, it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term, only variation ---------------------------------
So your agreeing that "natural selection occurs". Ok, great. I agree with that too.
Then you say "it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term." We are not talking about the scrictest of term (I assume you mean Macro Evolution by this statement). We are talking about a very particular and specialized area of the science: Micro Evolution.
Now, but your own admission, you have said that "natural selection occurs". It then follows that it must be a factor... great or small, if it occurs, its a factor.
With that said, "natural selection" does NOT ADD VARIATION... it is a "mechanism" that determines what Micro Variations will success and which ones will fail.
Thus, "natural selection" is not the same thing as variation. It is a different process... that is why defining it as "variation" alone is not an accurate definition. Only a word that includes both the process of "selection" and "variation" will accurately define the processes that happen in Micro Evolution.
The fact is that what ever you call it, "Micro Evolution" is made up of two primary ingredients: "variation and natural selection". Are you actually disagreeing with at a Micro Evolutionary level? If so, what evidency do you have that while "natural selection" occurs, it has no impact on the way animals change at a Micro Evolutionary level (within species). If you don't think "natural selection" has an impact on this process, then you are way off-base.
Here is the site you and many others like pointing me to (talkorgins.org). Check out these articles when you get the chance. Go to "search archives' and type in "woodpecker" and a nice list of articles will pop up. I have read a few of them and none of them address the irreducible complexities of the woodpecker. I'm amazed at how this passes for evidence, that this bird could have evolved one aspect or attribute at a time without the others.
also note in the articles that they state that "A number of creationists........." Are you asking them who their sources are? They don't list them...
Here is a little better description of what I'm trying to convey. This comes from the Answers In Genesis website.
Take the woodpecker, for instance. Here’s a bird that makes its living banging its head into trees. Whatever gave it the idea to do that in the first place? Was it frustration over losing the worm to the early bird? How did banging its head into trees increase its likelihood for survival—until after it had accumulated (by chance?) a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues, muscles, etc.! And what would be the survival value of all these features (and how could they build up in the population) until after the bird started banging its head into trees?
The woodpecker is a marvel of interdependent parts or “compound traits”—traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value. When a woodpecker slams its head into a tree, the deceleration experienced is many times gravity. The nerve and muscle coordination must produce a dead-on hit; a slip to one side or the other could virtually wrench the cover off the brain! The eyelids snap shut when the beak strikes its target. Some scientists say that’s to keep wood chips out of the eyes; others say it’s to keep the eyeballs from popping out of their sockets! Both may be right!
For such drilling, a woodpecker obviously needs a tough bill, heavy-duty skull, and shock-absorbing tissue between the two. But if the woodpecker were put together by time and chance, without any planning ahead, which part came first? Suppose, just by chance, a baby bird is born with a tough bill. It decides to try it out. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. The bill is just fine, but it squishes in the front of its face. One dead bird, end of evolutionary story!
But maybe I got it backwards. Maybe, just by chance, a baby bird was born with a heavy-duty skull. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. This time its skull is okay, but its bill folds up like an accordion. There’s no evolutionary future in that either!
In fact, neither the tough bill nor the heavy-duty skull would have any functional survival value until both occurred together—along with the shock-absorbing tissue, nerve and muscle coordination, etc.! That’s no problem if the woodpecker were put together by plan, purpose, and a special act of creation. We expect drilling tools created by people to have interdependent parts that must all be completely assembled before the machine works. That’s just good sense, and good science. We would surely expect no less from the perfect devices created by God!
And there’s more. Since death entered the world, some woodpeckers are doing more than just drilling holes to store acorns. They’re looking for bark beetles. The beetles hear all this pounding, of course, so they just crawl further down their tunnels. To reach the beetles, the woodpecker needs more than just drilling tools; it needs a long, sticky tongue.
But if a bird gets a long, sticky tongue just by chance, what’s it going to do with it? Dangling out of the bill, the tongue gets bit or even stepped on. As the bird is flying over a twig, the tongue could wrap around the twig and hang the hapless “pre-woodpecker.” The answer for the woodpecker is to slip its tongue into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull under the scalp and inserts into the right nostril! That makes good sense (and good science) if you’re planning ahead, but poses real problems if your faith is in time and chance, trial and error. (You don’t get another trial if the error is fatal!)
Evolutionists believe (like I once did) that all adaptations begin with time and chance, that is, with random changes in DNA and hereditary traits called mutations. In evolutionary theory, those chance mutations that suit an organism better to its environment are preserved by the process called natural selection. But natural selection can’t act until the favored traits arise by mutation, i.e., by time and chance.
Well, what about mutations? Mutations certainly do occur, and they are responsible for perhaps 3500 hereditary defects in human beings alone. But could mutations produce the coordinated set of structural and behavioral adaptations necessary to originate the woodpecker? Let’s see what two well-known evolutionary biologists have to say about that.
Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi26 writes the following about a system much simpler than the woodpecker. He is talking only about how a young herring gull pecks at a red spot on the beak to get the adult to spit up some food (if you’ll pardon the example). He says, “All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism … All this had to be developed simultaneously.” It’s the same thing for the woodpecker. So what are the odds of getting all the random mutations required for an advantageous behavioral response at the same time? Szent-Gyorgyi says that as a random mutation, it has the probability of…
What will he say here? The probability of one, that is, a certainty, given natural processes like selection and vast amounts of time? Some low figure like 10–3,000,000 (odds Huxley gave against the evolution of the horse)? Szent-Gyorgyi says that a coordinated behavioral adaptation such as the woodpecker’s drilling and probing, as “random mutation, has the probability of zero.” Just zero. Nothing. Its survival value, he says, just cannot come about by time and chance and the process of mutation and selection.
Then Szent-Gyorgyi goes on to say, “I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate ‘drive’ in living matter to perfect itself.” That innate drive he calls “syntropy,” the opposite of “entropy” (the universal law of disorder). In other words, here’s a brilliant scientist, and an evolutionist, whose observations of the living world force him to postulate at least an impersonal creative force. Here’s a scientist who recognizes that creation can be logically inferred from observations of certain kinds of order, even when we don’t know who or what the creative agent is.
Note the Evolutionary Biologist towards the end of article.
Pedro, not sure where your comment went. I published it but it seems to be delayed.
I think you have made this complicated when it doesn't have to be. I never said or implied that I would not talk about micro evolution nor that I was incapable of doing so. I would think since my very first blog entry that I was at the very least "capable" of discussing this topic. I am willing to discuss anything.
And I don't remember saying anything about the word "evolution" being recently invented? Not sure what your referring to. Maybe you meant "species".
And when have I ever disagreed that natural selection doesn't occur? Never. Search throughout my postings, I have always believed that natural selection occurs. BUT and that's a big but, Natural selection only "selects" it is not a mechanism for evolution (and yes I do mean Macro) Of course natural selection will have something do with the variation of a species. If you want to call that a mechanism go right a head.
This is what I'm referring to when I say natural selection = small, observable changes, speciation, adaptation etc.)
Both Evolutionist and Creationist have always agreed that Natural selection occurs.
I believe that there can only be variations within the created "kinds" though, nothing more.
Ex.
The beak of the woodpecker, for example, did not arise from the beak of a theropod dinosaur ancestor; it was an originally designed structure. The difference in beak shapes among woodpeckers fits with the idea of natural selection leading to changes within a population of woodpeckers—within the created kind.
- AiG
("changes within a population = variation within a species)
Now, you say:
"Now, but your own admission, you have said that "natural selection occurs". It then follows that it must be a factor... great or small, if it occurs, its a factor."
A factor of what? Macro? If you are referring to Macro you are wrong this is an assumption on your part. This is why I said natural selection is NOT a mechanism for evolution (Macro)
I'm assuming that's what you mean because your statement wouldn't make sense if you were referring to micro, because of course it would be a factor then.
You said:
"With that said, "natural selection" does NOT ADD VARIATION... it is a "mechanism" that determines what Micro Variations will success and which ones will fail."
What are you talking about? I agree with this already. But I would change your word "ADD" and say "CAUSE"
And I never said that natural selection "IS" variation. Natural selection causes variation within the created kinds. That's it. When I'm referring to variation within a species it's to be understood that this was caused by natural selection. At least I thought it was. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
you said:
"The fact is that what ever you call it, "Micro Evolution" is made up of two primary ingredients: "variation and natural selection". Are you actually disagreeing with at a Micro Evolutionary level? If so, what evidency do you have that while "natural selection" occurs, it has no impact on the way animals change at a Micro Evolutionary level (within species). If you don't think "natural selection" has an impact on this process, then you are way off-base."
I'm just not sure where you got this from? This doesn't make sense.
Simply put. I agree that natural selection selects and thus can cause variations within a species.
Ex. Darwin's Finches. All had different beaks but were still finches. There were a variation of finches due to natural selection but they were never anything other than a finch. Hope that makes sense brother.
Okay, did you get the point that Pasteur's experiments did not address abiogenesis? Or would you disagree? It has nothing to do with whether abiogenesis occurred or not, just whether that particular experiment ruled it out. I think you could agree with that point without in any way compromising your belief that abiogenesis is impossible.
For abiogenesis and evolution, I'm trying to think of an analogy - for example, if you build a shed out of wood, you can describe the plans for constructing the shed without specifying where you got the lumber, or how trees appeared on earth. In the same way you can talk about evolution separately from abiogenesis.
When you talk about a woodpecker and its specific characteristics, the characteristics that make it different from other birds, and you question how that could have happened by evolution, I interpret the question to be related to how a woodpecker could have evolved from some ancestral bird, not how a woodpecker could have come from the primordial soup (or whatever). That's certainly what it sounds like Charley was talking about, when he talked about the woodpecker's tongue and the 'sticky glue' etc. So to me a question about woodpecker evolution is an evolution question that does not depend on explaining the origin of life. Why bring up a specific case, like the evolution of the giraffe or woodpecker or prairie dog, if someone really wants to talk about how the first life-forms arose? Let's say the question of how a woodpecker evolved from an ancestral bird is a subset of the larger question of where life on earth came from. (I am not sure this was written clearly.)
About your point of evolutionary biologists struggling to explain the woodpecker, I am not positive I understand what you meant by that. I thought you meant that evolutionary biologists were troubled by trying to explain woodpecker evolution, and were uneasy about whether it could have happened. I am sure this is not the case. I didn't think you meant creationists like Hovind, or Ham. And I didn't think you were talking about whether the biological explanation was convincing to you. Maybe I misunderstood who you meant when you talked about struggling.
I didn't bring up panspermia to say I think it happened, but just to try to show that the process of evolution (the way biologists use the term) does not depend on exactly how or where simple cells appeared. Yes, there had to be living cells for evolution to happen, but the evolution of species by natural selection describes how species developed from single cells after there were single cells on earth. Maybe it's a semantic argument about the use of the word evolution.
This post doesn't answer any questions but I hope it makes it clearer what I said before, although I am not sure it does.
(Where I'm coming from: I used to be a Christian (although, like many Christian churches, my church - Methodist - did not think Genesis was literally true). Now I'm a nonbeliever, atheist-agnostic or atheist depending on definition. I'm also sort of a biologist, again depending on definition. I don't have specific experience in evolution-related research but I'm interested in reading about it.)
"Okay, did you get the point that Pasteur's experiments did not address abiogenesis?"
I never even said anything about abiogensiss in the first place. You brought it up in your reply to me. So I then simply replied to that comment. Check the post out for yourself. I know very well there is a difference. Your recent analogy is off also (pieces of wood......) I understand where your coming from and what you are trying to say. But even that requires a designer does it not? A builder right? I hear that argument from all the evolutionist I come across. They always tell me not to mix the two. I find that very convenient. In other words "I don't want to talk about how the first organism originated, I only want to talk about how it evolved once it came into existence. Again, I find this to be a cop-out. In my original post, I stated that Pasteur proved that "evolution" i.e.. spontaneous generation cannot occur.
May I ask why you would continue to believe in something that is disproven and allow it to drive you away from your faith? Highdesert, why, after being found by the one true loving God would you want to willingly be lost again? Can you tell me with 100% of your being that you believe there is no God? Since you said your somewhat of a possible Agnostic I would say no to that but I'm just wondering. I want to urge you to be like the prodigal son and run back into the Father's arms. I guarantee like the father in this story He will see you coming a long way off first before you see Him, you know why? Because he's always looking for you. Luke 15:11-32
You don't have to be subject to this - Hebrews 6:4-6
Okay, here's your comment: "It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (spontaneous generation) didn't work years and years ago but man still wants to believe it."
I think part of this disagreement is a problem of words. When you use the word evolution, you're including more things than when a biologist talks about evolution. 'Abiogenesis' means the appearance of living, reproducing, cells from nonliving chemicals; probably it includes the idea of living cells appearing under the conditions of the ancient earth, over a very long timespan. According to the biological definition of evolution, you have to have reproducing populations of lifeforms before you can have natural selection among those cells. I don't want to use the word 'evolution' for living cells appearing from nonliving chemicals because the biological term 'evolution' doesn't include that. I don't want to use the term 'spontaneous generation' because it has a historical meaning relating to people's ideas at Pasteur's time which is different from abiogenesis. And you don't seem to like the word abiogenesis.
Okay, I'm going to rephrase your sentence in a very awkward way. See if you think it still says what you meant it to say:
*It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (using the word 'evolution' in the broad creationist sense which includes the origin of living cells from non-living chemicals) didn't work years and years ago by his experiments disproving spontaneous generation (in the sense of the spontaneous appearance of living organisms in sterile broth over a short time span exposed to our current atmosphere), but man still wants to believe it.
Sorry, that's a very confusing sentence, but I'm trying to make it complete and acceptable to both of us.
If you think that sentence is basically what you were saying, then my answer is this: Louis Pasteur's experiments, which showed that living organisms did not spontaneously appear in sterile broth over a short time span under our current atmosphere, do not disprove evolution in the broad creationist sense (which includes the origin of living cells from non-living chemicals) because the biological hypothesis that living cells could have come from non-living chemicals assumes that the time span, the atmospheric conditions, the chemicals and other conditions in which life developed would have been very different from the conditions in Louis Pasteur's experiment. Pasteur's experiment cannot rule out the hypothesis of life forming under vastly different conditions. Therefore, Pasteur's experiment does not disprove evolution (using the evolution in the broad creationist sense of the word).
Thank you for your suggestions on religion. I'm sure I would be a happier and calmer person if I still had the beliefs I used to have, but it's very unlikely that I will ever go back to those beliefs. I don't close the door 100%, but it's extremely unlikely.
I think I understand what your saying but I'm trying to basically convey that When Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation (yes abiogensis) sorry for the confusion, could not occur, he then ultimately disproved that evolution (in it's broadest sense) could occur since evolutionist believe that life arose from non life. Would you agree? If not, please explain why.
In other words stated by a commentator, which I agree with; "Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life."
This is where I believe the confusion sets in. I was referring to him disproving abiogenesis thus disproving evolution. And if I'm not mistaken, once again, you want me to separate the two. I think you missed my inference from Pasteur's experiments on spontaneous generation to the evolution of species...
Does any of that make sense? I hope It did. Thanks again for your comments.
You said “I think you have made this complicated when it doesn't have to be.“
This conversation should have been very straight forward. What is making it complicated is that you keep pulling your answers towards Macro Evolution, even though I keep reiterating that I am only talking about and interested in your answers within the context of Micro Evolution (a.k.a. “Variations within kinds”). … yet, time and time again, you keep on answering me within the context of Macro Evolution. Half of those times, I didn’t even realize that you had switched context on me. So of course there are a bunch of misunderstandings here.
You said at the beginning of one of your paragraphs” “A factor of what? Macro?“
Again, just to be super clear… everything I have stated and all the questions I have asked are ALL within the context of Micro Evolution and Micro Evolution ONLY.
You said: “I don't remember saying anything about the word "evolution" being recently invented?”
You’re right. Looking back now I see that you didn’t… I thought you had. My bad. At any rate, my point was less about the word itself (“evolution”) and more about the fact that you went off on an irrelevant tangent about new words verses old word. It really had no bearing on the topic.
You Said: ------------------------------------ Natural selection only "selects" it is not a mechanism for evolution (and yes I do mean Macro). Of course natural selection will have something do with the variation of a species. I'm assuming that's what you mean because your statement wouldn't make sense if you were referring to micro, because of course it would be a factor then. ------------------------------------
No, not Macro Evolution (I never said anything about Macro). I am talking about Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variations within Kind). As you said here: "Of course natural selection will have something [to] do with the variation of a species”, you and I are agreeing on this. Natural Selection plays a part in Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variations within Kind). Great, I am glad we are on the same page.
CONCLUSION: While I had to read between the lines to understand your position on Micro Evolution. I do believe I understand it now. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You believe that Micro Evolution exists and consists of two processes: genetic variations and natural selection. You define the limit of “Micro Evolution” to variations within the created "kinds" and nothing more. When you say “kinds”, you don’t mean “species”. You believe that within any given species, there is multiple created “kinds”. You have also made it known that you dislike the name “Micro Evolution” and prefer the name “Variations within kinds” instead.
Does this conclusion accurately describe what you believe to be true? I think I am dead on now, but I just want to make sure.
Although from the very beginning and in many of my posts and debates with you early on I have stated my take on Micro Evo.
All you had to ask was "what is your stand on Micro Evo? And I would have reiterated on it.
If you have any other ambiguity or are obscure about anything else I'm trying to say, state your question clearly and I'll and I'll answer it (in a Micro Evolutionary context)
And again, I'm not making it sound like I'm the one who "prefers" the term variation within a species. This is the term commonly used by Creation Scientist. I merely wish to echo it in agreement. I don't like to use the word evolution because there are many different definitions and interpretations evo's use and the evolutionist can be unclear at times and change definitions right in the middle of an argument. I have even seen this in a text book on a creation vs. evolution debate once
So I try to make it clear "variation within a species"
Most of our debate was spent ironing out Natural Selection since we agreed early on that Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variation Within Kinds) was something we both believed in. Looking back through my posts, I can see where I was not as direct as I could have been. Fair enough. I will try to be clearer next time. :-)
At any rate, getting back to one of my main questions about life after the Great Flood, I see we agree there too. Variations Within Kinds has happened. We can't say with any certainty by how much, but non-the-less, it has created greater variation of animals within their kind, than what we started with. Do you agree?
With that said, let’s get back to this business of the woodpecker. I agree that there is no evidence that the woodpecker evolved from a different kind of animal... like a dog, fish, turtle... etc. We can’t even entertain this notion because there is no solid scientific proof that any animals ever evolved from a different kind or species.
On the other hand, could the woodpecker have evolved from another bird that was part of its kind (from another "bird")... sure, I think it could have happened. Just as there are hundreds of variations of dogs that have a known and documented history of evolving from the Wolf; so too the woodpecker could have evolved from a simpler bird. We can't prove it, but we also can’t deny the possibility. I don't think that this possibility contradicts biblical scripture and it does not contradict science. We don't know if the genetic variations and natural selection lead to a woodpecker from a lesser capable created bird or if the Woodpecker was a direct creation; but we have to acknowledge that either case could have happened. Wouldn’t you agree?
So far you haven't posted my answer on Pasteur's experiments. I'm puzzled why you didn't post it because it seemed very straight-forward. But maybe I didn't remember to send it, or maybe you're waiting to give a reply.
If I forgot to send it correctly, the answer is that Pasteur's experiments did not disprove abiogenesis because they only tested a very limited set of conditions. They answered the question they were planned to address, but they did not answer the question of whether life could occur in other, very different, circumstances. The experiments were not intended to address those questions. The experiments were unable to disprove evolution (in the sense in which it would include abiogenesis) because they didn't disprove abiogenesis.
I have posted everything you have sent regarding Pasteur - I have nothing else in my inbox. And I have to respectfully disagree with you and say that he did prove it (abiogenisis couldn't have occurred)
In addition, if you study up on the Miller Urey experiment which backfired on them showing very much life could not have arisen the way they say it did, this would be another argument against abiogenesis. I highly recommend the book Icons of Evolution. It is one of the most unbiased books I have ever read on the subject of Creation vs Evolutionism. It simply goes through all the major icons ever presented for evolution all the way to your famous present day monkeys to man poster/chart and points out the major flaws and direct contradictions for their so called "proof". If you sign up for a google account you can read this book free on google books. I started reading it like this but then bought the book because I realized there would be a lot of underlining :)
Oops, I probably forgot to re-enter the word verification and didn't check to see if it had gone through.
At this point no one has shown that abiogenesis is possible or impossible (AFAIK and IMO). It's a big stretch between a chemical solution and a complex living cell. But people are trying to break down the idea into what steps might have happened and what possible order they could have happened in (if they did happen) and whether each imagined step was possible. The tiny steps can be tested in the lab to see if they could happen, but AFAIK they're a long way from being able to describe a clear process. But that doesn't mean it is ruled out either.
About Pasteur's experiments: as I said before they only tested one condition over a very short time, and their intention was to disprove an idea that was commonly held at that time based on observation. It was observed that if sterile broth was exposed to air, bacteria would appear in it and contaminate it very quickly. Pasteur showed that this didn't happen if the air to the flask of sterile broth was passed through an S-shaped tube so that dust particles and bacteria in the air settled into the tube before getting to the broth. (This kind of thing has been repeated millions of times because a similar set of conditions is used in labs for growing cells or special strains of bacteria where they don't want contamination by random bacteria in the room.) I don't know how long Pasteur's experiment lasted, but I don't think it was very long - say weeks or months. But even years wouldn't necessarily be enough for all the steps needed to assemble a reproducing living cell from chemicals. Maybe it took thousands, millions of years for the right sequence of events. And there's no reason to think the right ingredients or conditions were present in Pasteur's experiments.
For instance one idea now is that molecules might have initially come together by being bound to clay particles. Well, if that were the way it happened, there was no clay in Pasteur's flasks. If lightning played a role - there was no lightning. Many bacteria will not grow in standard simple broths - they require special conditions or addition of special chemicals. I think there are many bacterial types that cannot presently be cultured at all in the lab because their precise living conditions haven't been worked out. Maybe the earliest bacteria were of those types that cannot now be cultured in the lab. If so, aside from all the other difficulties, they certainly would not have developed or flourished in Pasteur's broth since those bacteria today cannot live in Pasteur's broth. The early atmosphere on earth is thought by scientists to have been lower in oxygen than we have. Pasteur's experiment used the standard level of oxygen that we have now. If a lower level of oxygen was involved at some point in the chemical reactions, they would not have been able to happen in Pasteur's flasks. Maybe there was something cyclical that needed to happen (like cyclical temperatures, or levels of chemicals), which would not have taken place in Pasteur's experiment. So there's no way his experiment could have ruled out all possibilities for abiogenesis. His experiments were too limited in their culture conditions and very short time. (And again the experiments weren't intended to rule out all possible abiogenesis.)
Does that make it clearer why I think his experiments were too limited to rule out abiogenesis?
(I haven't read the Icons of Evolution book so far.)
"At any rate, getting back to one of my main questions about life after the Great Flood, I see we agree there too. Variations Within Kinds has happened. We can't say with any certainty by how much, but non-the-less, it has created greater variation of animals within their kind, than what we started with. Do you agree?"
I would absolutely agree with this, and this because I believe is where the evidence leads us, doesn't it? We can't obviously deny the variation we see within a species/kind.
As far as "could the woodpecker have evolved from another bird?" or evolved from a bird within it's kind. I would have to say no again, here's why; You still would have the same principles as macro evolution for say the woodpeckers tongue to evolve or it's shock absorbent skull and even it's hard rock beak. Most if not all of the birds out there have the same size tongue and do not have the skull or the beak in which the woodpecker does (from what I have read). So my question would be if it did evolve from one of the bird kinds, which one? There would still need to be natural selection taking place, time, chance and/or mutation and we just don't see this (time, chance mutation to new tongue or traits). As for what I believe, I believe this bird is a one of kind bird, I believe there can be variations, but all within the "woodpecker kind" I think the Lord made the bird kind, and there are woodpeckers and other birds, but I don't believe based on the characteristics of the woodpecker that it evolved from one of those other birds.
So if you believe that the woodpecker might have evolved from another bird kind, which one do you think? Which one would have one or all of the similar traits of the woodpecker? Again as a reminder, the woodpecker is irreducibly complex, this is why I don't believe that this bird could have evolved from another bird, say like the finch, robin or blue jay... I think within the woodpecker kind there can be variations say in tongue size or body mass etc..... Do me a favor, don't get back to me right away, take your time and read these two articles (no matter how long it takes) and let me know what you think. If you still think the woodpecker could have evolved from another bird, let me know which one you think it might be. They are both really short articles. (Highdesert, feel free to read them as well and let us know what you think)
You can also read what Talk Origins says on the woodpecker. It blows me away at how they attempt to explain how the woodpecker could have evolved. Here is a quick excerpt;
The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the following information shows, however, the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection. Joe
This is ridiculous, and if I came across this for the first time looking for an explanation as to how the WP evolved I would say "this is your explanation? First off they are assuming as usual that "mutations" which have benefited the WP to evolve this tongue happened over and over again (we have never observed this) Or do they think one WP evolved the trait and passed it on to their offspring from this point on? This too is an old argument that dates back to Darwin's day. Then they say "the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds". Sorry for being unprofessional but my technical terminology would have to be "No Duh..." And yes, "much" longer than "all" birds. How does this explain how the tongue became as long as it did, how does it explain the special hooked barbs and sticky substance on the end of the WP's tongue? It doesn't. And then they say "......through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates" This too is an assumption on their part. Did they witness the intermediate stages? Did they witness or view the intermediate birds' tongue as functional? And how was it functional if it wasn't yet long enough to, or developed enough to catch that bug hiding in the tree? Of course not, these are all based on their presuppositions just like most of evolution is... I find this all over the Talk Origins website all the time when trying to read what the evolutionist's argument is for a given topic.
Full article; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
I have a question for you. After you read my explanation about why Pasteur's experiments did not disprove abiogenesis, did you think that was a reasonable explanation and you now agree with that conclusion? Or did you think that it was reasonable, but you are holding off on agreeing until you think about it some more or check your sources for other thoughts? Or did you think the explanation was not correct? (If so, why, or what specific parts?) Or did you think the explanation did not make sense? Or some other reaction?
On the woodpecker: I don't want to get into the whole topic right now, but I'll say a couple of superficial things. It's interesting to me that you find AIG reasonable and TO ridiculous and my reaction is just the opposite. I wonder if it's possible to figure out why we hear these sites so differently. I'll point out again that the woodpecker seems irreducibly complex to you, but not to evolutionary biologists.
There was a paper last week that did a big analysis of bird genomics. Because of the study some bird taxonomy will probably be changed, although I don't think the woodpeckers will be affected. Just taking a quick look at the chart in that paper (and google), the closest birds to the woodpecker are birds like barbets and honeyguides, jacamars, bee-eaters, toucans, motmots, kingfishers. Most of those we don't have in the US (assuming that's where you live) except for kingfishers. The actual ancestors would most likely be extinct now. (Not addressing your points here, just adding some details.)
Interesting. I tend to agree with you now... since there is no evidence of intermediate birds with even remotely similar traits, it is more than likely an original created bird. There is always the chance that it was one heck of a freak mutation, but it is very unlikely. At this point it seems more likely to be a created bird.
Hahahaha..... Excellent observation. Even the woodpecker declares the Glory of the Lord my friend. Isn't that something?
I think a lot of people just don't see the woodpecker as anything special because they don't take the time to realize that its irreducibly complex and I'm sure no teacher would teach this in school. I will show you in some upcoming posts some other great creatures that I've read about that evolution could not have produced.
Oh, come on, Joe, can't you answer my polite and open-ended question about what I said about Pasteur's research? My explanation seemed very reasonable to me, and if it's not reasonable to you, I am puzzled why. (And the idea that Pasteur's experiments did not disprove the possibility that life appeared from non-living chemicals in the distant past does not conflict in any way with your opinions and beliefs as far as i can tell.)
i believe we are arguing in a circle. Once I begin to argue in a circle with someone i just dont see the need to plead my case. Its this simple: i believe that Pastuer's experiments proved that life cannot arise from non life. So then the rest of your case is nulled since evolutionist believe that life arose from non life. if this was disproven how then can we move on to abiogenesis and the evolution of one or all organisms?
But I don't understand why you think Pasteur's experiments proved that life cannot arise from non-life! This isn't circular, to my mind. It's a single simple point. I tried to explain why those experiments were too limited in their conditions to show that life could not come from non-life in any condition. Sorry to be repetitious, but it seemed like a clear answer to me.
Here's a not very good analogy. Suppose I do an experiment to show that you cannot make a cake from flour, eggs, sugar, butter, baking powder, milk, salt, and vanilla. Suppose I mix all those ingredients in a pan and let them sit on the counter for a few weeks. They will never turn into cake. Suppose I use a tsp of flour, a gallon of milk, and a cup of baking powder etc. and bake it at 500 degrees for an hour. It will not be cake. You can't rule out the ability to make cake from those ingredients by those two tests because the tests are too limited. You can't be sure you have tested the right conditions.
Pasteur only was able to show that life did not come from non-life under the specific conditions he tested.
Did this make more sense? If not, what am I missing???
(To be precise, Pasteur was able to show there was no living bacteria in his broth that grew well enough for him to detect it by the methods he used.)
Allow me to type an excerpt from "Evolution: A Fairy Tale For Grownups"
"Fill in the blank. Since at least the time of Aristotle (4th century B.C.), people believed that non-living objects could give rise to living organisms. It was common "knowledge" that food left out quickly "swarmed" with life. With a simple experiment in the mid 1800's, Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of ________
A - natural fructifying. B - simple engenderment. C - spontaneous generation.
Answer C. spontaneous generation. Nearly 200 years ago science proved that life cannot originate from lifeless matter. How ironic that evolution is supposedly scientific and yet claims that life originated from lifeless matter.
In-Depth Comments:
"By asking the question, what is spontaneous generation, we are asking: can life generate itself from non-living matter? For centuries, at least back to the 4th century B.C. until the late nineteenth century, people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by "spontaneous generation." It was "common knowledge" that simple organisms like worms, frogs, and salamanders could come from mud, dust, and unpreserved food. Today we know that all apparent spontaneous generation of life has an explanation. We also know that what was thought to be simple life was extremely complicated life. What we have learned is that life comes from life!"
-- "what is spontaneous generation?" All About Science www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-spontaneous-generation-faq.htm.
--
Lets not beat around the bush any longer highdesert. What is your greatest evidence for macro evolution? You sound like a rational and reasonable person who thinks through their answers before answering someone. I would like to hear what it was that caused you to make a decision to say this is fact and therefore I now believe this to be true. Please tell me what it was that convinced you we received from fish, the alligator, the bull, the polar bear, the giraffe and then the whale? In other words I would like to hear your greatest evidence in supporte one species gives/gave rise to a completely different species.
Ham is just plain wrong, as I explained in my other posts. Science did not prove that life cannot originate from non-living matter.
(And if you have the book, you can check to see if he used a falsified Wald quote in his book; I read on another site that he did. I think I put the correct quote in a comment on your Wald post, so you'll be able to compare.)
I hope I can answer your question about macroevolution. Sometimes when I try to put an answer together in my head it doesn't seem complete enough, and I put off answering and then I get distracted and start forgetting the different parts and I never actually post anything. So that might happen. Or maybe I can answer in some smaller bits. But I'm not sure I'll succeed in giving you a good answer. I'll try to write something later.
(ideas about macroevolution from other sources like anatomy are being confirmed from a new source, genomics. Genomics is a rich and growing source of information.)
We share our biochemical reactions with all life-forms. We all have the same biochemical basis. We have the same basic cell plan for all life above the bacteria level. Bacteria do not have a cell nucleus or mitochondria; the other life-forms called Eukaryotes do. Eukaryotes are assumed to have evolved from bacteria. We have similar proteins and the proteins are coded for by similar DNA sequences.
There is evidence that our mitochondria, our main sources for converting food energy into a form usable by the cell are really remnants of other bacteria which were swallowed up by an ancestral bacteria - or maybe lived symbiotically inside them (I don't remember what the thinking is on that). Gradually some of their genes were transferred to the nuclear chromosome and they stopped being independent bacteria. There still are separate mitochondrial chromosomes within the cell, separate from the main chromosomes in the nucleus, that still provide the information for some mitochondrial proteins. There is evidence for this. (The same process is thought to have been responsible for plants having chloroplasts in their cells - one bacteria initially inside another one. It is also a possibility for some other cell organelles.)
If you compare the DNA between mammals (us) and even simple organisms like yeast or tiny worms like nematodes, etc., there is a large amount of similarity. This is because mammals are built of cells, and the basic cell mechanisms are the same.
If you look at vertebrates, their basic structure is the same. If you look at mammals, the basic structure is very much the same. We have the same bones, the same organs, cells, biochemistry. There are variations, but they are variations based on the same basic plan.
Creationists often say that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat; that while there is a lot of variation in dog breeds they are all dogs. It is true that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat or a bear. Here are some of the times that evolutionary biology thinks might have elapsed since the divergence of some of these types of animals: from a carnivore ancestor, the cat line (felids) may have branched off 37-40 million years ago, bears the same, canids (dog-like animals) 32-35 mya. From some cat ancestor, tigers may have branched 1-2 mya, cheetahs, 3-4 mya, the cat which was the source of the house cat, 1-3 mya. For bears, the giant panda branched off 12 mya, the line leading to the bears like black bears and brown bears and polar bears, 4-6 mya, black bears, 2.5-3.5 mya, brown bears 1.5 mya, polar bear .07 mya. For canids, the red fox type species 9-12 mya, the canis species 6-7 mya, the wolf (dogs are a now listed as a subspecies of wolf) 1-2, coyote, 3-4 mya, jackals 2-3 mya.
I may have some of these wrongs, and the numbers could definitely have been tweaked since this paper was written, But they give a general idea of the times that biology is talking about.
You may think it's all nonsense yourself, but it makes no sense to ask a biologist why a dog doesn't give birth to a cat, when what evolutionary biology says is that there is 35 million years of time between them. Even coyotes and wolves, which can still hybridize, have been separate for 4 million years. Why would anyone think that the fact that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat is an argument against evolution? Evolution doesn't at all think that that happened. It took many millions of years for the mutations that separate dogs and cats to take place and get incorporated into the genome.
And think how similar they are. Four legs, tail, ears, face, fur, guts - all those basic things are the same. Of course there are differences, but there are great similarities between dogs and cats, even more between dogs and bears.
If you've had dogs and cats you may have noticed that dogs like to eat sweet things like cookies, while cats are uninterested in them. Cats are more purely carnivorous than dogs (they are called hypercarnivores). Cat species don't eat fruit in the wild; dog species can eat some (although wolves not as much as coyotes). Raccoons eat some fruit. Some bears eat honey. Ripe fruits can have a sweet taste from the sugars in them. It turns out that cats have lost their taste receptor for sweetness. people have it, mice and rats have it, dogs have it, many mammals have it, cats don't. The assumption would be that an ancestral mammal had the sweet receptor, and in particular the ancestral carnivore had it, but cats lost it, maybe because they were eating such a meat-centered diet that a mutation in the sweet receptor didn't cause any problem for them. So instead of causing the ancestral cat who had the mutation to be less successful at living and breeding, it was not a harmful mutation for the cat and eventual spread into the ancestral cat population.
Now at this point, you could say that maybe God just designed the cat without the sweetness receptor in the first place, not that the cat lost it during the course of evolution. But when they looked in the cat genome they found the remnants of the gene for the sweetness receptor. There was a chunk of the gene missing, and that missing chunk had also shifted the code for the rest of the gene so it would be read wrong. then there were some mutations that made bits of code telling the enzymes to stop copying the gene early. So the gene was still there, but too mutated to actually give the message needed to make the protein for the sweetness receptor. The same missing chunk was in 7 house cats plus a tiger plus a cheetah. So you could reasonably assume that those mutations had already happened in ancestral feline species before the ancestors of the lion and the cheetah and the ancestor of the house cat diverged from the ancestral feline line. This fits with what would be predicted by evolutionary biology. It wouldn't have to have been exactly like that because other mutations could have happened afterward and changed things. But in this case it was clear.
Now, I don't expect this to convince you. You have the option of making a guess that God could have done it in exactly that way. You can make up reasons why or you can just assume that you'll never understand God's reasons. I could ask why God gave cats the sweet gene in the first place, only to disable it. But you can probably come up with an argument. Maybe cats were eating fruit back in the garden of Eden before the fall? If so, did God disable the gene or was it a negative consequence of degradation after the fall? You can make up arguments in lots of ways. But why did the exact same mutation happen in lions, cheetahs, and house cats, if they were supposed to be separate lines? there's no reason the mutations would have to have been identical. But whatever your answer here that supports your view that creationism is possible, I hope you'll at the time see how this little bit of genomic information is exactly consistent with the ideas of evolutionary biology.
(This was probably a bit rambling. I hope it made sense.)
A little comment about the woodpecker video. All this drama about the woodpecker banging his head on the tree and smashing his brain. What about pain? What about learning? I was watching a young jay (NOT a woodpecker) and he was pecking something on top of a rock. I couldn't see what. Then he was pecking something on an iron fence post. Why didn't HE bash in his brain? Could it be that birds have instincts and/or learn as they grow up how hard to peck before it hurts, and whether to test an unknown material gently at first to see if it hurts or if it yields like rotten wood? The whole bashing-in-the-brain scenario is so silly.
Whether anything I post is the slightest bit reasonable or convincing to you, I have to say that I have read so many fascinating things while thinking about the woodpecker video and your posts. It's a pleasure, and at the same time daunting at how information is out there.
Here's a brief answer to question 6 on that list: "6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? doesn't sound like "natural selection" to me. How do you explain this?"
It isn’t the individual animal, but the animal’s genes that need to survive. Survival in this case means the ability for the animal to live long enough to reproduce and pass its genes on to another generation which is healthy enough etc. to be able to reproduce also. Imagine a female bear with a mutation that makes it infertile. Without the stress of producing and feeding and guarding cubs, maybe that bear will live longer and be healthier than the other bears. But since it can’t pass the mutated gene on to any descendants, that mutated gene will die out even though the bear itself lives longer. Imagine a mutation which makes the bear stop taking care of its cubs earlier so that only half of them live long enough to reproduce. The gene will get passed on, but there will be more of the regular gene because there will be more surviving bears that have that gene. So the mutated gene will probably drop out of the population. It's not that the animals 'want to' make more of their species, but that only animals whose inherited genes have produced successful reproductive behavior in the past can even exist.
(This is highdesert; blogger isn't taking my password, so I'll try anonymous)
Hey, Joe, I was trying to explain it to you (which is what the question asked for), not give evidence for it. Don't imagine a bear if you don't want to; the example is true for any animal now or in the past, and it's very straightforward. An animal that doesn't reproduce doesn't pass on its genes, so the genes that contributed to its not reproducing don't survive.
Evolutionary biology doesn't say that animals 'want' to have genetic changes that will make species different in future generations and that somehow the 'wanting' makes it happen. There's no wanting or planning for the future in evolution. It depends on what genes get passed on in each generation.
My whole point is that your argument is pure speculation. Why would you attempt to explain anything at all with no evidence for it? By which means do you come to your conclusions since you have no evidence? This is why I point out your "imagine..." and your "maybe...." If Evolution is a proven fact then we should see evidence for it, solid empirical evidence. But the only thing I can see are assumptions and "maybe it could have happened this way...." arguments. This would be unacceptable in a court of law if you were trying to prove your case for evolution.
44 comments:
IMO Charley seems to know very little about evolution, judging from the video.
I'm assuming you liked this video, since you put it on your site.
I'm guessing you liked it because it made a case that woodpecker evolution was impossible for very simple common sense reasons, and that anyone who thought that woodpeckers could have evolved from other types of birds must be foolish.
I would have guessed that if a strong case were presented for how the woodpecker could have evolved, creationist supporters would just say that it was still a bird, still in the bird 'kind', and that evolution of the woodpecker from some other ancestral bird species would count as micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Some creationist sites say that they accept micro-evolution. So my guess would be that even a strong case for woodpecker evolution would not be a problem for creationists. If this seems reasonable to you, then it means that your commitment to creationism is in no danger whether you think the woodpecker was a result of special creation or whether you found the evidence reasonable that the woodpecker evolved.
So when you watched Charley, I wonder if you thought about whether his humorous scenario was all there was to know about woodpecker evolution. I wonder if you thought about whether there might be other common sense ways that you could imagine woodpeckers having evolved those features. I wonder if it occurred to you that maybe evolutionary scientists or ornithologists actually had some explanations for how these steps might have happened without being immediately fatal. I wonder if you considered whether some of the unique features of the most specialized woodpecker species also occurred in less specialized ways in other related species, or in fossils. I wonder if you did some reading in books or online about woodpecker evolution.
I wonder if you checked on talk-origins to see if they had a reaction to this particular creationist argument.
Highdesert -
Yes I have done some studying on the woodpecker and have seen many videos and teachings on them - nothing intensive but I have come to the conclusion after learning all that the Woodpecker could do that it is definitely "Irreducibly Complex" Now I'm sure your very familiar with that term. As you can see you have very much the "chicken and the egg" problem when considering God's wonderful creation, the woodpecker. In other words, the species has to be able to survive as it develops one attribute at a time. For example, a woodpecker without a long tongue could drill a hole but then would starve. How do you live with one and not the other? Have you truly studied the woodpecker as you say you have and come to the conclusion that it evolved all the necessary components required to survive? If that is so, why would the woodpecker decide to even do that? Why not just swoop down and eat small bugs off of leaves or the ground? Why try to chase bugs hidden in trees?
Why don't you look where the evidence leads you? This animal could not have evolved. God would’ve had to create the woodpecker with all these attributes in place at one time or it would not have survived as a species.
And I'm very familiar with talk origins' website. I find it funny how every single person I debate or discuss these things with "always" refers me to that site and that site only. I was reading an interesting article on their the other day called "proof of evolution" or "evidence of evolution" or something close to that effect, sorry but the title has escaped me for now. In any event the articled was fluttered and peppered with words like "we think that" and "it probably happened" "it most likely did it this way...." "It could of...." and so on. I could not find "undisputable" proof of evolution.
In addition I'm sure you are more than welcome to email or comment "Charlie" if you feel his teaching on the woodpecker is inaccurate.
Thanks for your comments.
Joe
Actually I have never studied anything about the woodpecker myself.
Maybe I will start to read about them now.
I'm starting to read about woodpeckers, but I may lose interest.
Meanwhile: the reason people refer other people to the talk-origins site is because it's a good collection of sources about evolution and specific examples of creationist arguments. So it is often a good place to start when looking into a creationist argument. I hope you did read their section on woodpeckers.
You think (and Charley thinks) that woodpeckers are irreducibly complex, but I'm sure you also know evolutionary biologists don't agree with you. I guess if I keep trying to read about woodpeckers I'd look for information on where the different woodpecker traits show up in different species. Are there examples where the different traits show up by themselves? And are there examples where two traits partially occurred together, like length of beak and length of tongue? What woodpeckers had the tongue barbs? Etc.
I'm still reading about woodpeckers. For me there is too much information that's new to me and also not enough information at the same time. I'm not getting very far.
I did read that other birds have the same toe arrangement -two front, two back - that woodpeckers have (owls & parrots, also wrynecks). Hummingbirds also have long tongues with hyoid bones that extend over their skulls. Other birds hammer on things: jays hammer on nuts; chickadees hammer on sunflower seeds; oystercatchers hammer on mollusk shells. Brown creepers and nuthatches and chickadees eat insects off of tree bark and they have smaller beaks and 3-front, one-back toes. Woodpeckers can eta other things besides grubs in the bark; flickers eat worms and insects from the ground. Woodpeckers could eat insects off the outside of the bark as well as under the bark - and also things like seeds and fruit.
Wrynecks are considered to be close relatives of woodpeckers. According to wikipedia they have the zygodactyl toes and long tongues, but their bills are shorter than woodpecker bills and they don't have the stiffened tail feathers. So it sounds like all those features that Charley talked about don't have to happen simultaneously: they are not irreducibly complex.
The idea of evolution is not that a bird is born one day with a huge beak and nothing else to go with it. The idea is that the bird might have a slightly larger beak, and they might have access to a different group of insects. And then of those birds, the ones whose tongues are a bit longer do better. (Or vice versa, with a longer tongue and then a stronger beak. The features develop over time, together, not in isolation from each other. (Some features having to do with the same structure might be linked in development.)
I haven't found anything about about ths 'glue' and the stuff Charley says releases the 'glue'. The 'glue' must be mucousy saliva, and it would be washed off by the more liquidy saliva. Some birds do use saliva for other things, like some swallows making nests. Again, having sticky saliva is not a unique feature, and it isn't a big change from what a bird naturally has, just a variation.
I am still trying to read up on the woodpeckers. If you have any sites that you think are particularly helpul, you could post a link.
Hello, Joe. I took your suggestion and emailed Charley to ask about the sticky stuff on the woodpecker's tongue and the other stuff that dissolved it. I asked for links or references. So far no response. I did say I didn't agree with his views, which seemed only fair, but I didn't argue at all. So maybe that's why he didn't answer, or maybe it's not. Maybe he has been so swamped with responses to his videos that he no longer answers questions. Or maybe he has just been too busy lately. Or maybe he doesn't have a good answer.
If you have a link or reference about the tongue and saliva and hyoid bone, I hope you will post it. I haven't read anything new, but I decided to look up the chameleon tongue, since by evolutionary theory, birds would have some relation to reptiles.
Meanwhile I looked at some of your links. I think I'd be better off staying away from the Creation-Evolution Headlines link. It had the same effect on my brain as when you scoop up too much hot Chinese mustard on your egg roll, and for a few minutes you think the top of your forehead is going to melt.
Ummm... wow, the logic in the video has more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer. That guy assumes that evolution is always shooting for a single outcome. Evolution does not work that way. Each of those specialized characteristics of a wood pecker could have provided the bird with different advantages over the years... each developing independently, and each for different purposes until one day one of those birds found a new application for all those specialized skills and then evolution continued to refine them until it reached what we see today.
Micro evolution is a mute point Joe. Why do you post stuff like this which is misleading? Micro evolution is a proven process that happens. Look at the history of the pet dog over the last couple hundred years. ... the evidence for Micro evolution is clear and plain to see.
Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution.
Hahahaha...... My good friend Pedro is back again. Hey buddy... It's been a while. Welcome back.
Well honestly I think if your suggesting this magnificent bird developed each of the traits we now see over millions of years, you threw logic and reasoning out the door a long time ago. Pedro, you have the chicken and the egg argument here. One component could not have existed without the other for the woodpecker to survive and eat the way it does today. I don't claim to be a woodpecker expert but I do know that many evolutionist struggle to wonder how this bird could have evolved since it needs all components to be present at once for these traits to work. This bird is iriducibly complex, it cannot be broken down any more into a simple form without getting rid of something and in so nothing working at all. One cannot work without the other. So your woodpecker anatomy is a little off when you said "each developing independently, and each for different purposes until one day one of those birds found a new application for all those specialized skills...." This is just one animal that I can point to you that the evolutionary "theory" cannot account for. Once again I have to say that you are compromising God's word. You can't have it both ways. Either it evolved or God created it like he said he did on day five:
"20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."
I would truly love to know where you got millions of years from this statement from the creator who was present when he did it all? I would also like to know why God would call this "very good" if it had to die and mutate over millions of years first before comming to what we now see? Especially when the bible said there was no death yet.
Pedro,
If you never heard of God or Jesus before and I were to give you the bible in hand for the first time ever and locked you in a room for three weeks and asked you to read the entire thing, do you think you would come out thinking that Genesis referred to millions of years or six literal 24 hr days? Hence the "morning and evening". This isn't a trick question. I'm trying to point out that you received the "millions of years" theology from mans fallible arguments not God's infallible word. I by no means am saying I dislike science, ask my family, I love it. True science interpreted correctly points to God. But science text books change their theories and facts around every year were the bible has remained the same since it was divinely breathed into man to write it down over a period of 1400-1600 years by 40 different authors on three different continents. The bible is not a science book but when it touches on science it is scientifically accurate. No other book does this, let alone predict the future (prophecy accurately). Not the book of Mormons, not the Quran and not any of the other "holy writings" which speak of things that are unscientific. (not to be confused with supernatural) I would be more than happy to share these with you.
By the way since Evolution is a "fact" do you mind answering some questions? You should have no problem if evolution is true. It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (spontaneous generation) didn't work years and years ago but man still wants to believe it. And for the record I already told you that I believe in "micro" evolution though I wouldn't call it that. It should be better referred to as "variation within a species" And I believe that this occurs because it's able to be observed, tested, repeated and demonstrated unlike your man to molecules teaching that macro evolution can be accounted for based on what you see during micro evolution. Macro evolution is a huge stretch of the imagination. You said so your self "look at the dog....." Exactly Pedro. Look at the dog. over thousands of years there have been many many "variations" of dog, hundreds of them. But have you noticed something? THEY ALL LOOK LIKE DOGS!!! They all have tails and four legs etc... Have you ever witnessed a dog produce a non dog? See where your faith lies? You have not seen macro evolution, it cant be proven in a lab or demonstrated in anyway and the so called proof for evolution is a handful of bones that can fit into ONE coffin and are all disputable. Yet you believe it? How did we get the Bear from these dogs? The Polar Bear? The Giraffe? The Elephant? The Whale? All while the preceding animals still remain? It's not in the genetic code Pedro. You will never ever in two trillion years, should God allow it, develop wings because it's not written in your genetic code. Nor have we ever ever witnessed anyone or anything develop new code in the genome. We only see a scrambling of an already existing code (mutations). You will never produce Chinese books using the English alphabet Pedro no matter how much you scramble the letters around.
Can I ask another question? Since we are followers of Jesus - it's worth taking note that Jesus quoted and took the old testament "literally" If we are followers of Jesus Christ shouldn't we take it literally also? Pedro why is it that Jesus spoke of Genesis/Creation as a real literal event but you think it's an allegory of some sort for millions of years? (Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6 - note the word "beginning" as Jesus used it, not the "end" of creation which would have had to be if millions of years occurred first.)
Questions for Evo's - (Taken from Dr. Kent Hovind and CSE)
1. Where did the space for the universe come from if the Big Bang were true?
2. Where did matter come from? If it can neither be created nor destroyed how could evolution account for this? (1st Law of Thermo Dynamics)
3. How did the matter get so perfectly organized?
4. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? and why would it even do that?
5. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? what are the chances of two of anything developing the necessary reproductive parts to fit with each other. The odds are astronomical. If you say it was A sexual then I would ask why did it feel the need to reproduce? This defies "survival of the fittest" as stated in the next question.
6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? doesn't sound like "natural selection" to me. How do you explain this?
7. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books)
8. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
and.......
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc....evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others?) -------> Hence the Woodpecker
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc...?)
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The Termite or the flagella in it's intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
the immune system or the need for it?
Some Cosmology: Referring to the so called Big Bang Theory-
9. The Planetary Collision Theory says our world collided with a small planet, producing our moon. but such an Impact would totally destroy our planet. How could such an impact produce a circling moon? This would have had to be repeated for all 60 moons in our solar system. The theory would require thousands of planets passing through our solar system for enough direct hits to produce all our moons. Why are not such fly byes occurring today?
10. The usual shape of the galaxies is that of a saucer with a central sphere. This shape defies explanation by the laws of physics. Island universes should not have their highly coordinated, inter-orbiting structure arrangement. The stars should all fly apart. Each galaxy is a carefully organized city in the sky. Can you explain this from an evolutionary standpoint?
11. Angular momentum is another serious problem. Why do stars turn? Why do galaxies rotate? Why do planets orbit stars? Why do binary stars circle one another? How could the super-fast linear (straight line) motion started by the supposed Big Bang, have changed into rotation (spinning or revolving motion) and revolutions (orbiting motion)? How could angular momentum exist and in such perfectly balanced orbits throughout space? There is no possible way that floating gas could transform itself into rotating and orbiting objects, like stars, planets and moons. Can you explain this?
12. Evidence is accumulating that the entire universe is rotating! This is angular momentum on the most gigantic of proportions. Yet the Big Bang should only have produced linear movement outward from it. ?????? My brain is frying man, help me out here...
13. Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circling that we find in the orbits of the suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balances not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers- or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no" first generation" (population 1) stars, Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at lest one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits. ???????? Can you explain this?
Evolution could not do or explain this
Maybe you could explain this?:
The Mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. In May or June, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size about 3 feet deep and 6 feet long. then he fills is with vegetation. As it rots, it heats up. the bird waits patiently until the rains, which increase the heat to over 100º F at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92º F. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate; she lays one egg a day for 30 days, and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thermometer bill for 7 weeks. he cannot let the temperature go up or down even one degree. If it cools at night, he piles on more sand. If it overheats in the day, he pulls off sand. At hatching time, the chicks break their shells and crawl up through as much as 2 feet of sand! Arriving at the top, each one is fully able to fly and is on its own. Neither father or mother mallee bird gives it any further attention or training. when it grows up, it does just as it's parents did.
Another story:
Daniel Bernoulli was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulli's principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well. these little creatures admirably apply this principle in making their underground tunnel cities. The burrows have two openings--one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones. they work hard to make that second opening higher than the flat one on ground level. Having done this, the Bernoulli principle takes effect and nicely aerates their burrows with fresh air. Can evolution explain this?
another one:
Porpoises (bottle-nosed dolphins) never hurt humans, but crush vicious barracudas and kill deadly sharks. It is sonar (underwater radar) that enables them to successfully plan their attacks. With their high pitched squeaks, they can identify the type of fish, and measure its distance and size. Porpoises have a special region in their head which contains a specialized type of fat. Scientists call it their "melon", for that is it's shape. Because the speed of sound in the fatty melon is different than that of the rest of the body, this melon is used as a sound lens to collect sonar signals and interpret them to the brain. It focuses sound, just as a glass lens focuses light. The focused sound produces a small "sound picture" in the porpoise's mind showing it the unseen things ahead in the dark, murky water. It has been discovered that the composition of this fatty lens can be altered by the porpoise in order to change the sound speed through the melon and thus change the focus of the lens to accord with variational factors in the surrounding water! There is also evidence that the composition of fat varies in different parts of the melon. This technique of doublet lens (two glass lenses glued together) is used in optical lenses in order to overcome chromatic aberrations and produce high-quality light lenses. The porpoise appears to be using a similar principle for it's sound lens system! Can evolution explain that?
how about this one:
Try as they might, scientists cannot figure out how to make light without 94.5% of the energy being used as heat. But the firefly, Phontinus, makes light with 90% of the energy for that purpose. The glow of a firefly contains only 1/80,000 of the heat that would be produced by a candle flame of equal size. One scientists spent his lifetime studying the luciferin in fireflies, without success. Many other researchers have tackled the problem, and have also failed.
The diving spider is a regular spider which breathes air but spends most of it's time under water. Diving under water with a bubble, and fastening it to vegetation, the spider uses it for air and a nest. The living and nesting habits of this spider are complex and amazing. As soon as the babies are born, they do their part in diving and helping the family.
Once again brother thanks for the comments and look forward to your reply.
P.S.
Pedro, during your quiet time with the Lord and when you are alone praying and reading his word, I urge you brother to ponder very very deeply the scripture I'm going to paste below and ask God to truly reveal to you the truth about his creation account - you are a sincere man so ask him sincerely what the truth is. The bible says to Seek Ask and Knock and the you will Find, Receive and the Door will be opened to you. (Matt 7:7) This scripture is a reference to the constant seeking of Gods truth and constant prayer as well.
Ponder this wonderful and yet frightful verse from God's word - 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
"So that men are without excuse" No man is without excuse in this complex universe God has produced. I can only think of one reason why man would want to explain God away by means of evolution and naturalism and that is not to be held accountable to a holy and righteous God
Joe
P.S.S. And another thing. Why are we even having this conversation based on your comment "Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution." ???
Hi, can I post too?
I didn't read your whole post yet because it is long! But IJWTS that it's way easier for me to read the black with a white background than the posts on your actual blog which are white or blue on a black background.
Two quick things.
One:
You said this:
"I don't claim to be a woodpecker expert but I do know that many evolutionist struggle to wonder how this bird could have evolved since it needs all components to be present at once for these traits to work. "
You say you KNOW that evolutionists (I would say evolutionary biologists) struggle with wondering how woodpeckers could have evolved etc,. Okay, then what are your sources for knowing that? I think you're wrong. I don't think evolutionary biologists have any problem with this at all. They may not know the exact details, but probably have some reasonable ideas. Really, the woodpecker didn't have to change 100% all at one time - that's not remotely how things are thought to evolve. (Maybe I'll post more later except that by now I've forgotten all the things I was reading about.)
Two:
Evolution of the species is not the same thing as the origin of life (abiogenesis). You can talk about them both, but they are two different ideas and situations. You don't have to have had abiogenesis occur on earth for evolution to have occurred: aliens could have brought single cells to earth or God could have created single cells; it's what happened after the single cells appeared that was when evolution by natural selection occurred. But aside from that, Louis Pasteur did NOT disprove abiogenesis. His experiments were addressing a different question. He only looked at a very short term event, the observation that things like bacteria appeared repeatedly in unsterilized broth. Whatever you think about abiogenesis, you would be incorrect to think that Pasteur's experiments dealt with it. (That was the point of the Wald article that you mentioned below, with the false quote that was actually some creationist's paraphrase.)
Oh my! Do you realize you just wrote a 5 page paper covering 10 different topics I didn't even bring up? ... literally; 5 pages. :-) I love you brother. You just got to stick to a narrow topic area otherwise its pretty much impossible for us to have a productive discussion.
You said:
-----------------
P.S.S. And another thing. Why are we even having this conversation based on your comment "Joe, you should stick to material which is more obviously unproven like Macro evolution." ???
-----------------
I was asking myself the same question reading your post. :-) To answer your question, I am conseeding to the fact that science shows no proof of Macro evolution. There you go, I said it. :-) Any discussion of Macro evolution is pure speculation with little to no basis. You have convinced me of that.
Moving on. Regarding the woodpecker, I really can't comment any more than I already did without reading the research on the bird. Since I don't have time for that, I will have to leave our discussion at that. If you're right that its a chicken vs egg thing, then your right that God must have created the Woodpecker at a stage that is very close to what it is today.
Regarding Micro Evolution: Yes, you have stated in the past that you believed that is real and does exist. ... I disagree with your attempt to redefine it as "variation within species". It is not just variation. Its the combination of variation and natural selection, thus the use of the term "evolution" is a more accurate definition. But I do agree that the term "within species" is a better definition than the use of "Micro". ... So lets call it "evolution within species". This would be most accurate; don't you agree?
So let me ask you Joe, if you believe in Evolution Within Species, then where do you draw the line between what God created and what "could have" evolved-within-species? Would it be fair to say that many of the variations of animals we see today could have been a result of "Evolution Witin Species"... particularly considering the Great Flood? The Ark only contained a pair of animals of each "kind" and not every variation there-of correct? Where do you draw the line here?
Now remember, don't get carries away in your answer. Lets stick to a very narrow discussion of Evolution Within Species only. That will make it a more managable and productive discussion for both of us.
From your comment:
"Daniel Bernoulli was an 18th-century physicist who first stated the principle that the pressure exerted by a moving fluid decreases as the fluid moves faster. Bernoulli's principle may sound complicated to you and me; but prairie dogs, which live in the western plains of America, understand it well.... The burrows have two openings--one at ground level, the other located on a foot-tall chimney of mud and stones.... Can evolution explain this?"
Do you think this person meant that the prairie dogs literally understand Bernoulli's principle, and stand around doing physics equations when building their holes? Obviously they don't. They make their holes the way it works. I assume they make them that way by instinct, but I don't know - do you? It could be instinct modified by the learning from the other prairie dogs in their group.
Why would they have started making them that way in the first place? Well, it seems to me that they're digging tunnels, and the dirt has to go somewhere, so it would make sense that they'd have dirt at one or more of their holes. Smoothing the dirt over might happen as a part of their running in and out, or maybe it helped to keep the tunnel entrance open if they firmed it up. Having mounds around the entrances might help to keep water out and give them a place to stand to look for predators. Maybe they piled the dirt on the first 'in' entrance in a different way from when they were pushing out the 'out' entrance, so the dirt mounds might automatically be formed a bit differently. (But I don't know any details of how they build their burrows, do you?) The prairie dogs that built one end (maybe the 'out' end?) a bit higher automatically may have had a better place to stand to see predators. How much difference would have been necessary to benefit from the better airflow. do you know? The better airflow, the longer the tunnels they could build. If you assume that the longer, better ventilated tunnel increases their chances to survive, then the prairie dogs which spend a bit more time building up one of their entrances will be selected for. That's how evolution is expected to work.
(You already think that they build their burrows based on stored genetic info, don't you?)
Pedro, I hope I didn't just reject your comment. The "publish" and "reject" buttons were so close to each other. However, I think I got it back since I see it below.
Yes I know I got carried away with the answer :) Call it a summary if you will, hahaha. I only wrote all that stuff because I know exactly where your coming from and know what you believe. So call it "covering all basis" if you will. And remember, no matter how I answer you, you can reply as long or as short as you would like. I mostly do it for other readers coming across the blog that may have certain questions. It serves as a good reference at the very least. However, I agree it was a bit redundant. But honestly, I enjoyed typing it and it didn't feel like five pages at all :) As you know I also don't have time for replies like that, I just happen to have a little on my hands then.
As for "variation within a species" I would say I'm not "re"-defining it at all.. This is what many of the scientists who I read up on call it - (Dr. Ken Ham, Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. Kent & Eric Hovind, Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Terry Mortenson etc.....) I use this term because they use this term and they use this term because God said this when he said "kinds" in Genesis. God didn't say according to their "species", he said "kind" We have invented the word species so you can't go looking for it in 4,000 - 6,000 + year old scripture just as you won't find the word "Dinosaur" in the bible because the word was invented in the mid 1800's. I say this because people usually try to argue with a uniformitarian's attitude in that what we have today or see today has always been. So I will stick to saying variation within a species because although "natural selection occurs, it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term, only variation. But this is minor so I would say call it what you would like. I am usually always referring to "macro" in my arguments so.....
As far as where do I draw the line? I suppose I draw it where/when someone comes along with no evidence what so ever in their conclusion that one "kind" or "species" developed from a completely different one. Ex. The dog, cat, bear, giraffe and elephant had a common ancestor or developed from the same organism.
Joe
Highdesert,
I see you like technicality, as do I.
Now when I say "many" evolutionist I am referring to the numerous arguments I have heard or read in this on going debate between creation science and evolutionism. I have been studying this topic since shortly after becoming a Christian in the year 2001. Now are you asking me to go back and site every single source I have read or heard? Would you or could you do that? I would not say "they struggle with" understanding how this bird could have evolved if I have not heard their side of the argument or read evolutionists research paper's before (I often read a lot of what Richard Dawkins puts out and am subscribed to his blog - just to mention one evolutionist now). It's sort of hard to keep up with your comments because you are requesting for me to recount and supply you with all my sources and materials in which I use to study this topic. I simply don't have the time to do that. However, I will try to leave sources in my postings for you to eliminate the "guess work" of where I obtained the information.
In addition,
you said
"Two:
Evolution of the species is not the same thing as the origin of life (abiogenesis). You can talk about them both, but they are two different ideas and situations. You don't have to have had abiogenesis occur on earth for evolution to have occurred: aliens could have brought single cells to earth or God could have created single cells; it's what happened after the single cells appeared that was when evolution by natural selection occurred. But aside from that, Louis Pasteur did NOT disprove abiogenesis. His experiments were addressing a different question. He only looked at a very short term event, the observation that things like bacteria appeared repeatedly in unsterilized broth. Whatever you think about abiogenesis, you would be incorrect to think that Pasteur's experiments dealt with it. (That was the point of the Wald article that you mentioned below, with the false quote that was actually some creationist's paraphrase.)"
This whole paragraph from you is extremely false and honestly very scrambled.
I know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. And your comment on Aliens shows me where your line of thinking is. Where is your source or evidence for thinking of "panspermia"? I'm sure you have heard the term right?
In addition, to say that you don't need abiogensis to have evolution is in direct contradiction. How can you have evolution or how can something even begin to evolve if it has not somehow come into existence first? Your asking me to forget about how evolutionist say something first appeared and go right to the evolving stages of it. I believe this to be a major cop out on the part of the evolutionist. The burden of proof is on you. You first need to explain (with evidence) how your first "organism" if you will, came into existence then you can try to explain to me how it evolved. I suggest before you try explaining how that first organism came into existence you read the book "Icons of Evolution" or do some research on the Miller Urey experiment.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
It was a major failure in trying to explain how the first organism came into existence and actually backfired showing the opposite.
Thanks again,
Joe
Joe,
That's fine that usually you discuss Macro Evolution when you debate, however, that shouldn't make you incapable of discussing Micro Evolution; correct?
First, let me point out that it is totally irrelivant that the word evolution was invented recently. Who cares? What's important is what it means. If a word, better defines a process, then it does not matter when it was invented.
You said:
---------------------------------
So I will stick to saying variation within a species because although "natural selection occurs, it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term, only variation
---------------------------------
So your agreeing that "natural selection occurs". Ok, great. I agree with that too.
Then you say "it is NOT a "mechanism" for evolution in the strictest term." We are not talking about the scrictest of term (I assume you mean Macro Evolution by this statement). We are talking about a very particular and specialized area of the science: Micro Evolution.
Now, but your own admission, you have said that "natural selection occurs". It then follows that it must be a factor... great or small, if it occurs, its a factor.
With that said, "natural selection" does NOT ADD VARIATION... it is a "mechanism" that determines what Micro Variations will success and which ones will fail.
Thus, "natural selection" is not the same thing as variation. It is a different process... that is why defining it as "variation" alone is not an accurate definition. Only a word that includes both the process of "selection" and "variation" will accurately define the processes that happen in Micro Evolution.
The fact is that what ever you call it, "Micro Evolution" is made up of two primary ingredients: "variation and natural selection". Are you actually disagreeing with at a Micro Evolutionary level? If so, what evidency do you have that while "natural selection" occurs, it has no impact on the way animals change at a Micro Evolutionary level (within species). If you don't think "natural selection" has an impact on this process, then you are way off-base.
I look forward to your reply.
Highdesert,
Here is the site you and many others like pointing me to (talkorgins.org). Check out these articles when you get the chance. Go to "search archives' and type in "woodpecker" and a nice list of articles will pop up. I have read a few of them and none of them address the irreducible complexities of the woodpecker. I'm amazed at how this passes for evidence, that this bird could have evolved one aspect or attribute at a time without the others.
also note in the articles that they state that "A number of creationists........." Are you asking them who their sources are? They don't list them...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Here is a little better description of what I'm trying to convey. This comes from the Answers In Genesis website.
Take the woodpecker, for instance. Here’s a bird that makes its living banging its head into trees. Whatever gave it the idea to do that in the first place? Was it frustration over losing the worm to the early bird? How did banging its head into trees increase its likelihood for survival—until after it had accumulated (by chance?) a thick skull with shock absorbing tissues, muscles, etc.! And what would be the survival value of all these features (and how could they build up in the population) until after the bird started banging its head into trees?
The woodpecker is a marvel of interdependent parts or “compound traits”—traits that depend on one another for any to have functional value. When a woodpecker slams its head into a tree, the deceleration experienced is many times gravity. The nerve and muscle coordination must produce a dead-on hit; a slip to one side or the other could virtually wrench the cover off the brain! The eyelids snap shut when the beak strikes its target. Some scientists say that’s to keep wood chips out of the eyes; others say it’s to keep the eyeballs from popping out of their sockets! Both may be right!
For such drilling, a woodpecker obviously needs a tough bill, heavy-duty skull, and shock-absorbing tissue between the two. But if the woodpecker were put together by time and chance, without any planning ahead, which part came first? Suppose, just by chance, a baby bird is born with a tough bill. It decides to try it out. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. The bill is just fine, but it squishes in the front of its face. One dead bird, end of evolutionary story!
But maybe I got it backwards. Maybe, just by chance, a baby bird was born with a heavy-duty skull. WHACK! It throws its head into a tree. This time its skull is okay, but its bill folds up like an accordion. There’s no evolutionary future in that either!
In fact, neither the tough bill nor the heavy-duty skull would have any functional survival value until both occurred together—along with the shock-absorbing tissue, nerve and muscle coordination, etc.! That’s no problem if the woodpecker were put together by plan, purpose, and a special act of creation. We expect drilling tools created by people to have interdependent parts that must all be completely assembled before the machine works. That’s just good sense, and good science. We would surely expect no less from the perfect devices created by God!
And there’s more. Since death entered the world, some woodpeckers are doing more than just drilling holes to store acorns. They’re looking for bark beetles. The beetles hear all this pounding, of course, so they just crawl further down their tunnels. To reach the beetles, the woodpecker needs more than just drilling tools; it needs a long, sticky tongue.
But if a bird gets a long, sticky tongue just by chance, what’s it going to do with it? Dangling out of the bill, the tongue gets bit or even stepped on. As the bird is flying over a twig, the tongue could wrap around the twig and hang the hapless “pre-woodpecker.” The answer for the woodpecker is to slip its tongue into a muscular sheath that wraps around the skull under the scalp and inserts into the right nostril! That makes good sense (and good science) if you’re planning ahead, but poses real problems if your faith is in time and chance, trial and error. (You don’t get another trial if the error is fatal!)
Evolutionists believe (like I once did) that all adaptations begin with time and chance, that is, with random changes in DNA and hereditary traits called mutations. In evolutionary theory, those chance mutations that suit an organism better to its environment are preserved by the process called natural selection. But natural selection can’t act until the favored traits arise by mutation, i.e., by time and chance.
Well, what about mutations? Mutations certainly do occur, and they are responsible for perhaps 3500 hereditary defects in human beings alone. But could mutations produce the coordinated set of structural and behavioral adaptations necessary to originate the woodpecker? Let’s see what two well-known evolutionary biologists have to say about that.
Nobel Prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi26 writes the following about a system much simpler than the woodpecker. He is talking only about how a young herring gull pecks at a red spot on the beak to get the adult to spit up some food (if you’ll pardon the example). He says, “All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism … All this had to be developed simultaneously.” It’s the same thing for the woodpecker. So what are the odds of getting all the random mutations required for an advantageous behavioral response at the same time? Szent-Gyorgyi says that as a random mutation, it has the probability of…
What will he say here? The probability of one, that is, a certainty, given natural processes like selection and vast amounts of time? Some low figure like 10–3,000,000 (odds Huxley gave against the evolution of the horse)? Szent-Gyorgyi says that a coordinated behavioral adaptation such as the woodpecker’s drilling and probing, as “random mutation, has the probability of zero.” Just zero. Nothing. Its survival value, he says, just cannot come about by time and chance and the process of mutation and selection.
Then Szent-Gyorgyi goes on to say, “I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate ‘drive’ in living matter to perfect itself.” That innate drive he calls “syntropy,” the opposite of “entropy” (the universal law of disorder). In other words, here’s a brilliant scientist, and an evolutionist, whose observations of the living world force him to postulate at least an impersonal creative force. Here’s a scientist who recognizes that creation can be logically inferred from observations of certain kinds of order, even when we don’t know who or what the creative agent is.
Note the Evolutionary Biologist towards the end of article.
Full article @ this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-adaptation.asp
Thanks again,
Joe
Pedro, not sure where your comment went. I published it but it seems to be delayed.
I think you have made this complicated when it doesn't have to be. I never said or implied that I would not talk about micro evolution nor that I was incapable of doing so. I would think since my very first blog entry that I was at the very least "capable" of discussing this topic. I am willing to discuss anything.
And I don't remember saying anything about the word "evolution" being recently invented? Not sure what your referring to. Maybe you meant "species".
And when have I ever disagreed that natural selection doesn't occur? Never. Search throughout my postings, I have always believed that natural selection occurs. BUT and that's a big but, Natural selection only "selects" it is not a mechanism for evolution (and yes I do mean Macro) Of course natural selection will have something do with the variation of a species. If you want to call that a mechanism go right a head.
This is what I'm referring to when I say natural selection = small, observable changes, speciation, adaptation etc.)
Both Evolutionist and Creationist have always agreed that Natural selection occurs.
I believe that there can only be variations within the created "kinds" though, nothing more.
Ex.
The beak of the woodpecker, for example, did not arise from the beak of a theropod dinosaur ancestor; it was an originally designed structure. The difference in beak shapes among woodpeckers fits with the idea of natural selection leading to changes within a population of woodpeckers—within the created kind.
- AiG
("changes within a population = variation within a species)
Now, you say:
"Now, but your own admission, you have said that "natural selection occurs". It then follows that it must be a factor... great or small, if it occurs, its a factor."
A factor of what? Macro? If you are referring to Macro you are wrong this is an assumption on your part. This is why I said natural selection is NOT a mechanism for evolution (Macro)
I'm assuming that's what you mean because your statement wouldn't make sense if you were referring to micro, because of course it would be a factor then.
You said:
"With that said, "natural selection" does NOT ADD VARIATION... it is a "mechanism" that determines what Micro Variations will success and which ones will fail."
What are you talking about? I agree with this already. But I would change your word "ADD" and say "CAUSE"
And I never said that natural selection "IS" variation. Natural selection causes variation within the created kinds. That's it. When I'm referring to variation within a species it's to be understood that this was caused by natural selection. At least I thought it was. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
you said:
"The fact is that what ever you call it, "Micro Evolution" is made up of two primary ingredients: "variation and natural selection". Are you actually disagreeing with at a Micro Evolutionary level? If so, what evidency do you have that while "natural selection" occurs, it has no impact on the way animals change at a Micro Evolutionary level (within species). If you don't think "natural selection" has an impact on this process, then you are way off-base."
I'm just not sure where you got this from? This doesn't make sense.
Simply put. I agree that natural selection selects and thus can cause variations within a species.
Ex. Darwin's Finches. All had different beaks but were still finches. There were a variation of finches due to natural selection but they were never anything other than a finch. Hope that makes sense brother.
Joe
Aaack, false AND scrambled.
Okay, did you get the point that Pasteur's experiments did not address abiogenesis? Or would you disagree? It has nothing to do with whether abiogenesis occurred or not, just whether that particular experiment ruled it out. I think you could agree with that point without in any way compromising your belief that abiogenesis is impossible.
For abiogenesis and evolution, I'm trying to think of an analogy - for example, if you build a shed out of wood, you can describe the plans for constructing the shed without specifying where you got the lumber, or how trees appeared on earth. In the same way you can talk about evolution separately from abiogenesis.
When you talk about a woodpecker and its specific characteristics, the characteristics that make it different from other birds, and you question how that could have happened by evolution, I interpret the question to be related to how a woodpecker could have evolved from some ancestral bird, not how a woodpecker could have come from the primordial soup (or whatever). That's certainly what it sounds like Charley was talking about, when he talked about the woodpecker's tongue and the 'sticky glue' etc. So to me a question about woodpecker evolution is an evolution question that does not depend on explaining the origin of life. Why bring up a specific case, like the evolution of the giraffe or woodpecker or prairie dog, if someone really wants to talk about how the first life-forms arose? Let's say the question of how a woodpecker evolved from an ancestral bird is a subset of the larger question of where life on earth came from.
(I am not sure this was written clearly.)
About your point of evolutionary biologists struggling to explain the woodpecker, I am not positive I understand what you meant by that. I thought you meant that evolutionary biologists were troubled by trying to explain woodpecker evolution, and were uneasy about whether it could have happened. I am sure this is not the case.
I didn't think you meant creationists like Hovind, or Ham. And I didn't think you were talking about whether the biological explanation was convincing to you. Maybe I misunderstood who you meant when you talked about struggling.
I didn't bring up panspermia to say I think it happened, but just to try to show that the process of evolution (the way biologists use the term) does not depend on exactly how or where simple cells appeared. Yes, there had to be living cells for evolution to happen, but the evolution of species by natural selection describes how species developed from single cells after there were single cells on earth. Maybe it's a semantic argument about the use of the word evolution.
This post doesn't answer any questions but I hope it makes it clearer what I said before, although I am not sure it does.
(Where I'm coming from: I used to be a Christian (although, like many Christian churches, my church - Methodist - did not think Genesis was literally true). Now I'm a nonbeliever, atheist-agnostic or atheist depending on definition. I'm also sort of a biologist, again depending on definition. I don't have specific experience in evolution-related research but I'm interested in reading about it.)
(I sent my comment before I read your most recent one.)
HIghdesert said:
"Okay, did you get the point that Pasteur's experiments did not address abiogenesis?"
I never even said anything about abiogensiss in the first place. You brought it up in your reply to me. So I then simply replied to that comment. Check the post out for yourself. I know very well there is a difference. Your recent analogy is off also (pieces of wood......) I understand where your coming from and what you are trying to say. But even that requires a designer does it not? A builder right? I hear that argument from all the evolutionist I come across. They always tell me not to mix the two. I find that very convenient. In other words "I don't want to talk about how the first organism originated, I only want to talk about how it evolved once it came into existence. Again, I find this to be a cop-out. In my original post, I stated that Pasteur proved that "evolution" i.e.. spontaneous generation cannot occur.
May I ask why you would continue to believe in something that is disproven and allow it to drive you away from your faith? Highdesert, why, after being found by the one true loving God would you want to willingly be lost again? Can you tell me with 100% of your being that you believe there is no God? Since you said your somewhat of a possible Agnostic I would say no to that but I'm just wondering. I want to urge you to be like the prodigal son and run back into the Father's arms. I guarantee like the father in this story He will see you coming a long way off first before you see Him, you know why? Because he's always looking for you. Luke 15:11-32
You don't have to be subject to this - Hebrews 6:4-6
Joe
Okay, here's your comment:
"It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (spontaneous generation) didn't work years and years ago but man still wants to believe it."
I think part of this disagreement is a problem of words. When you use the word evolution, you're including more things than when a biologist talks about evolution. 'Abiogenesis' means the appearance of living, reproducing, cells from nonliving chemicals; probably it includes the idea of living cells appearing under the conditions of the ancient earth, over a very long timespan. According to the biological definition of evolution, you have to have reproducing populations of lifeforms before you can have natural selection among those cells. I don't want to use the word 'evolution' for living cells appearing from nonliving chemicals because the biological term 'evolution' doesn't include that. I don't want to use the term 'spontaneous generation' because it has a historical meaning relating to people's ideas at Pasteur's time which is different from abiogenesis. And you don't seem to like the word abiogenesis.
Okay, I'm going to rephrase your sentence in a very awkward way. See if you think it still says what you meant it to say:
*It's funny how Louis Pasteur proved that evolution (using the word 'evolution' in the broad creationist sense which includes the origin of living cells from non-living chemicals) didn't work years and years ago by his experiments disproving spontaneous generation (in the sense of the spontaneous appearance of living organisms in sterile broth over a short time span exposed to our current atmosphere), but man still wants to believe it.
Sorry, that's a very confusing sentence, but I'm trying to make it complete and acceptable to both of us.
If you think that sentence is basically what you were saying, then my answer is this:
Louis Pasteur's experiments, which showed that living organisms did not spontaneously appear in sterile broth over a short time span under our current atmosphere, do not disprove evolution in the broad creationist sense (which includes the origin of living cells from non-living chemicals) because the biological hypothesis that living cells could have come from non-living chemicals assumes that the time span, the atmospheric conditions, the chemicals and other conditions in which life developed would have been very different from the conditions in Louis Pasteur's experiment. Pasteur's experiment cannot rule out the hypothesis of life forming under vastly different conditions. Therefore, Pasteur's experiment does not disprove evolution (using the evolution in the broad creationist sense of the word).
Thank you for your suggestions on religion. I'm sure I would be a happier and calmer person if I still had the beliefs I used to have, but it's very unlikely that I will ever go back to those beliefs. I don't close the door 100%, but it's extremely unlikely.
Highdesert,
I think I understand what your saying but I'm trying to basically convey that When Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation (yes abiogensis) sorry for the confusion, could not occur, he then ultimately disproved that evolution (in it's broadest sense) could occur since evolutionist believe that life arose from non life. Would you agree? If not, please explain why.
In other words stated by a commentator, which I agree with; "Since evolution requires life from non-life (spontaneous generation or abiogenesis), and Louis Pasteur disproved this, evolution has been rendered impossible on account of life not being able to generate from non-life."
This is where I believe the confusion sets in. I was referring to him disproving abiogenesis thus disproving evolution. And if I'm not mistaken, once again, you want me to separate the two. I think you missed my inference from Pasteur's experiments on spontaneous generation to the evolution of species...
Does any of that make sense? I hope It did. Thanks again for your comments.
Joe
You said “I think you have made this complicated when it doesn't have to be.“
This conversation should have been very straight forward. What is making it complicated is that you keep pulling your answers towards Macro Evolution, even though I keep reiterating that I am only talking about and interested in your answers within the context of Micro Evolution (a.k.a. “Variations within kinds”). … yet, time and time again, you keep on answering me within the context of Macro Evolution. Half of those times, I didn’t even realize that you had switched context on me. So of course there are a bunch of misunderstandings here.
You said at the beginning of one of your paragraphs” “A factor of what? Macro?“
Again, just to be super clear… everything I have stated and all the questions I have asked are ALL within the context of Micro Evolution and Micro Evolution ONLY.
You said: “I don't remember saying anything about the word "evolution" being recently invented?”
You’re right. Looking back now I see that you didn’t… I thought you had. My bad. At any rate, my point was less about the word itself (“evolution”) and more about the fact that you went off on an irrelevant tangent about new words verses old word. It really had no bearing on the topic.
You Said:
------------------------------------
Natural selection only "selects" it is not a mechanism for evolution (and yes I do mean Macro). Of course natural selection will have something do with the variation of a species. I'm assuming that's what you mean because your statement wouldn't make sense if you were referring to micro, because of course it would be a factor then.
------------------------------------
No, not Macro Evolution (I never said anything about Macro). I am talking about Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variations within Kind). As you said here: "Of course natural selection will have something [to] do with the variation of a species”, you and I are agreeing on this. Natural Selection plays a part in Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variations within Kind). Great, I am glad we are on the same page.
CONCLUSION:
While I had to read between the lines to understand your position on Micro Evolution. I do believe I understand it now. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You believe that Micro Evolution exists and consists of two processes: genetic variations and natural selection. You define the limit of “Micro Evolution” to variations within the created "kinds" and nothing more. When you say “kinds”, you don’t mean “species”. You believe that within any given species, there is multiple created “kinds”. You have also made it known that you dislike the name “Micro Evolution” and prefer the name “Variations within kinds” instead.
Does this conclusion accurately describe what you believe to be true? I think I am dead on now, but I just want to make sure.
Hahaha. Ahh.. Pedro isn't this fun?
Yes your last statement is "dead on"
Although from the very beginning and in many of my posts and debates with you early on I have stated my take on Micro Evo.
All you had to ask was "what is your stand on Micro Evo? And I would have reiterated on it.
If you have any other ambiguity or are obscure about anything else I'm trying to say, state your question clearly and I'll and I'll answer it (in a Micro Evolutionary context)
And again, I'm not making it sound like I'm the one who "prefers" the term variation within a species. This is the term commonly used by Creation Scientist. I merely wish to echo it in agreement. I don't like to use the word evolution because there are many different definitions and interpretations evo's use and the evolutionist can be unclear at times and change definitions right in the middle of an argument. I have even seen this in a text book on a creation vs. evolution debate once
So I try to make it clear "variation within a species"
Joe
Most of our debate was spent ironing out Natural Selection since we agreed early on that Micro Evolution (a.k.a. Variation Within Kinds) was something we both believed in. Looking back through my posts, I can see where I was not as direct as I could have been. Fair enough. I will try to be clearer next time. :-)
At any rate, getting back to one of my main questions about life after the Great Flood, I see we agree there too. Variations Within Kinds has happened. We can't say with any certainty by how much, but non-the-less, it has created greater variation of animals within their kind, than what we started with. Do you agree?
With that said, let’s get back to this business of the woodpecker. I agree that there is no evidence that the woodpecker evolved from a different kind of animal... like a dog, fish, turtle... etc. We can’t even entertain this notion because there is no solid scientific proof that any animals ever evolved from a different kind or species.
On the other hand, could the woodpecker have evolved from another bird that was part of its kind (from another "bird")... sure, I think it could have happened. Just as there are hundreds of variations of dogs that have a known and documented history of evolving from the Wolf; so too the woodpecker could have evolved from a simpler bird. We can't prove it, but we also can’t deny the possibility. I don't think that this possibility contradicts biblical scripture and it does not contradict science. We don't know if the genetic variations and natural selection lead to a woodpecker from a lesser capable created bird or if the Woodpecker was a direct creation; but we have to acknowledge that either case could have happened. Wouldn’t you agree?
So far you haven't posted my answer on Pasteur's experiments. I'm puzzled why you didn't post it because it seemed very straight-forward. But maybe I didn't remember to send it, or maybe you're waiting to give a reply.
If I forgot to send it correctly, the answer is that Pasteur's experiments did not disprove abiogenesis because they only tested a very limited set of conditions. They answered the question they were planned to address, but they did not answer the question of whether life could occur in other, very different, circumstances. The experiments were not intended to address those questions.
The experiments were unable to disprove evolution (in the sense in which it would include abiogenesis) because they didn't disprove abiogenesis.
Highdesert,
I have posted everything you have sent regarding Pasteur - I have nothing else in my inbox. And I have to respectfully disagree with you and say that he did prove it (abiogenisis couldn't have occurred)
In addition, if you study up on the Miller Urey experiment which backfired on them showing very much life could not have arisen the way they say it did, this would be another argument against abiogenesis. I highly recommend the book Icons of Evolution. It is one of the most unbiased books I have ever read on the subject of Creation vs Evolutionism. It simply goes through all the major icons ever presented for evolution all the way to your famous present day monkeys to man poster/chart and points out the major flaws and direct contradictions for their so called "proof". If you sign up for a google account you can read this book free on google books. I started reading it like this but then bought the book because I realized there would be a lot of underlining :)
Joe
Oops, I probably forgot to re-enter the word verification and didn't check to see if it had gone through.
At this point no one has shown that abiogenesis is possible or impossible (AFAIK and IMO). It's a big stretch between a chemical solution and a complex living cell. But people are trying to break down the idea into what steps might have happened and what possible order they could have happened in (if they did happen) and whether each imagined step was possible. The tiny steps can be tested in the lab to see if they could happen, but AFAIK they're a long way from being able to describe a clear process. But that doesn't mean it is ruled out either.
About Pasteur's experiments: as I said before they only tested one condition over a very short time, and their intention was to disprove an idea that was commonly held at that time based on observation. It was observed that if sterile broth was exposed to air, bacteria would appear in it and contaminate it very quickly. Pasteur showed that this didn't happen if the air to the flask of sterile broth was passed through an S-shaped tube so that dust particles and bacteria in the air settled into the tube before getting to the broth. (This kind of thing has been repeated millions of times because a similar set of conditions is used in labs for growing cells or special strains of bacteria where they don't want contamination by random bacteria in the room.) I don't know how long Pasteur's experiment lasted, but I don't think it was very long - say weeks or months. But even years wouldn't necessarily be enough for all the steps needed to assemble a reproducing living cell from chemicals. Maybe it took thousands, millions of years for the right sequence of events. And there's no reason to think the right ingredients or conditions were present in Pasteur's experiments.
For instance one idea now is that molecules might have initially come together by being bound to clay particles. Well, if that were the way it happened, there was no clay in Pasteur's flasks. If lightning played a role - there was no lightning. Many bacteria will not grow in standard simple broths - they require special conditions or addition of special chemicals. I think there are many bacterial types that cannot presently be cultured at all in the lab because their precise living conditions haven't been worked out. Maybe the earliest bacteria were of those types that cannot now be cultured in the lab. If so, aside from all the other difficulties, they certainly would not have developed or flourished in Pasteur's broth since those bacteria today cannot live in Pasteur's broth. The early atmosphere on earth is thought by scientists to have been lower in oxygen than we have. Pasteur's experiment used the standard level of oxygen that we have now. If a lower level of oxygen was involved at some point in the chemical reactions, they would not have been able to happen in Pasteur's flasks. Maybe there was something cyclical that needed to happen (like cyclical temperatures, or levels of chemicals), which would not have taken place in Pasteur's experiment. So there's no way his experiment could have ruled out all possibilities for abiogenesis. His experiments were too limited in their culture conditions and very short time. (And again the experiments weren't intended to rule out all possible abiogenesis.)
Does that make it clearer why I think his experiments were too limited to rule out abiogenesis?
(I haven't read the Icons of Evolution book so far.)
"At any rate, getting back to one of my main questions about life after the Great Flood, I see we agree there too. Variations Within Kinds has happened. We can't say with any certainty by how much, but non-the-less, it has created greater variation of animals within their kind, than what we started with. Do you agree?"
I would absolutely agree with this, and this because I believe is where the evidence leads us, doesn't it? We can't obviously deny the variation we see within a species/kind.
As far as "could the woodpecker have evolved from another bird?" or evolved from a bird within it's kind. I would have to say no again, here's why; You still would have the same principles as macro evolution for say the woodpeckers tongue to evolve or it's shock absorbent skull and even it's hard rock beak. Most if not all of the birds out there have the same size tongue and do not have the skull or the beak in which the woodpecker does (from what I have read). So my question would be if it did evolve from one of the bird kinds, which one? There would still need to be natural selection taking place, time, chance and/or mutation and we just don't see this (time, chance mutation to new tongue or traits). As for what I believe, I believe this bird is a one of kind bird, I believe there can be variations, but all within the "woodpecker kind" I think the Lord made the bird kind, and there are woodpeckers and other birds, but I don't believe based on the characteristics of the woodpecker that it evolved from one of those other birds.
So if you believe that the woodpecker might have evolved from another bird kind, which one do you think? Which one would have one or all of the similar traits of the woodpecker? Again as a reminder, the woodpecker is irreducibly complex, this is why I don't believe that this bird could have evolved from another bird, say like the finch, robin or blue jay... I think within the woodpecker kind there can be variations say in tongue size or body mass etc..... Do me a favor, don't get back to me right away, take your time and read these two articles (no matter how long it takes) and let me know what you think. If you still think the woodpecker could have evolved from another bird, let me know which one you think it might be. They are both really short articles. (Highdesert, feel free to read them as well and let us know what you think)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-adaptation.asp
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/woodpecker.htm
P.S.
You can also read what Talk Origins says on the woodpecker. It blows me away at how they attempt to explain how the woodpecker could have evolved. Here is a quick excerpt;
The unusual appearance of the woodpecker’s "tongue skeleton" has inspired creationists to use it as an example of a structure too bizarre to have evolved through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates. As the following information shows, however, the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds, and is in fact a perfect example of how anatomical structures can be shaped into new forms by mutations and natural selection.
Joe
This is ridiculous, and if I came across this for the first time looking for an explanation as to how the WP evolved I would say "this is your explanation? First off they are assuming as usual that "mutations" which have benefited the WP to evolve this tongue happened over and over again (we have never observed this) Or do they think one WP evolved the trait and passed it on to their offspring from this point on? This too is an old argument that dates back to Darwin's day. Then they say "the strange tongue of woodpeckers is actually just an elongated version of that found in all birds". Sorry for being unprofessional but my technical terminology would have to be "No Duh..." And yes, "much" longer than "all" birds. How does this explain how the tongue became as long as it did, how does it explain the special hooked barbs and sticky substance on the end of the WP's tongue? It doesn't. And then they say "......through chance mutations which produced functional intermediates" This too is an assumption on their part. Did they witness the intermediate stages? Did they witness or view the intermediate birds' tongue as functional? And how was it functional if it wasn't yet long enough to, or developed enough to catch that bug hiding in the tree? Of course not, these are all based on their presuppositions just like most of evolution is... I find this all over the Talk Origins website all the time when trying to read what the evolutionist's argument is for a given topic.
Full article;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
hI, Joe.
I have a question for you. After you read my explanation about why Pasteur's experiments did not disprove abiogenesis,
did you think that was a reasonable explanation and you now agree with that conclusion?
Or did you think that it was reasonable, but you are holding off on agreeing until you think about it some more or check your sources for other thoughts?
Or did you think the explanation was not correct? (If so, why, or what specific parts?)
Or did you think the explanation did not make sense?
Or some other reaction?
On the woodpecker: I don't want to get into the whole topic right now, but I'll say a couple of superficial things.
It's interesting to me that you find AIG reasonable and TO ridiculous and my reaction is just the opposite. I wonder if it's possible to figure out why we hear these sites so differently. I'll point out again that the woodpecker seems irreducibly complex to you, but not to evolutionary biologists.
There was a paper last week that did a big analysis of bird genomics. Because of the study some bird taxonomy will probably be changed, although I don't think the woodpeckers will be affected. Just taking a quick look at the chart in that paper (and google), the closest birds to the woodpecker are birds like barbets and honeyguides, jacamars, bee-eaters, toucans, motmots, kingfishers. Most of those we don't have in the US (assuming that's where you live) except for kingfishers. The actual ancestors would most likely be extinct now.
(Not addressing your points here, just adding some details.)
Interesting. I tend to agree with you now... since there is no evidence of intermediate birds with even remotely similar traits, it is more than likely an original created bird. There is always the chance that it was one heck of a freak mutation, but it is very unlikely. At this point it seems more likely to be a created bird.
Hahahaha..... Excellent observation. Even the woodpecker declares the Glory of the Lord my friend. Isn't that something?
I think a lot of people just don't see the woodpecker as anything special because they don't take the time to realize that its irreducibly complex and I'm sure no teacher would teach this in school. I will show you in some upcoming posts some other great creatures that I've read about that evolution could not have produced.
Joe
Oh, come on, Joe, can't you answer my polite and open-ended question about what I said about Pasteur's research? My explanation seemed very reasonable to me, and if it's not reasonable to you, I am puzzled why.
(And the idea that Pasteur's experiments did not disprove the possibility that life appeared from non-living chemicals in the distant past does not conflict in any way with your opinions and beliefs as far as i can tell.)
Highdesert,
i believe we are arguing in a circle. Once I begin to argue in a circle with someone i just dont see the need to plead my case. Its this simple: i believe that Pastuer's experiments proved that life cannot arise from non life. So then the rest of your case is nulled since evolutionist believe that life arose from non life. if this was disproven how then can we move on to abiogenesis and the evolution of one or all organisms?
Joe
But I don't understand why you think Pasteur's experiments proved that life cannot arise from non-life! This isn't circular, to my mind. It's a single simple point. I tried to explain why those experiments were too limited in their conditions to show that life could not come from non-life in any condition. Sorry to be repetitious, but it seemed like a clear answer to me.
Here's a not very good analogy. Suppose I do an experiment to show that you cannot make a cake from flour, eggs, sugar, butter, baking powder, milk, salt, and vanilla. Suppose I mix all those ingredients in a pan and let them sit on the counter for a few weeks. They will never turn into cake.
Suppose I use a tsp of flour, a gallon of milk, and a cup of baking powder etc. and bake it at 500 degrees for an hour. It will not be cake.
You can't rule out the ability to make cake from those ingredients by those two tests because the tests are too limited. You can't be sure you have tested the right conditions.
Pasteur only was able to show that life did not come from non-life under the specific conditions he tested.
Did this make more sense? If not, what am I missing???
(To be precise, Pasteur was able to show there was no living bacteria in his broth that grew well enough for him to detect it by the methods he used.)
Allow me to type an excerpt from "Evolution: A Fairy Tale For Grownups"
"Fill in the blank. Since at least the time of Aristotle (4th century B.C.), people believed that non-living objects could give rise to living organisms. It was common "knowledge" that food left out quickly "swarmed" with life. With a simple experiment in the mid 1800's, Louis Pasteur disproved the theory of ________
A - natural fructifying. B - simple engenderment. C - spontaneous generation.
Answer C. spontaneous generation. Nearly 200 years ago science proved that life cannot originate from lifeless matter. How ironic that evolution is supposedly scientific and yet claims that life originated from lifeless matter.
In-Depth Comments:
"By asking the question, what is spontaneous generation, we are asking: can life generate itself from non-living matter? For centuries, at least back to the 4th century B.C. until the late nineteenth century, people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by "spontaneous generation." It was "common knowledge" that simple organisms like worms, frogs, and salamanders could come from mud, dust, and unpreserved food. Today we know that all apparent spontaneous generation of life has an explanation. We also know that what was thought to be simple life was extremely complicated life. What we have learned is that life comes from life!"
-- "what is spontaneous generation?" All About Science www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-spontaneous-generation-faq.htm.
--
Lets not beat around the bush any longer highdesert. What is your greatest evidence for macro evolution? You sound like a rational and reasonable person who thinks through their answers before answering someone. I would like to hear what it was that caused you to make a decision to say this is fact and therefore I now believe this to be true. Please tell me what it was that convinced you we received from fish, the alligator, the bull, the polar bear, the giraffe and then the whale? In other words I would like to hear your greatest evidence in supporte one species gives/gave rise to a completely different species.
Joe
Ham is just plain wrong, as I explained in my other posts. Science did not prove that life cannot originate from non-living matter.
(And if you have the book, you can check to see if he used a falsified Wald quote in his book; I read on another site that he did. I think I put the correct quote in a comment on your Wald post, so you'll be able to compare.)
I hope I can answer your question about macroevolution. Sometimes when I try to put an answer together in my head it doesn't seem complete enough, and I put off answering and then I get distracted and start forgetting the different parts and I never actually post anything. So that might happen. Or maybe I can answer in some smaller bits. But I'm not sure I'll succeed in giving you a good answer. I'll try to write something later.
(ideas about macroevolution from other sources like anatomy are being confirmed from a new source, genomics. Genomics is a rich and growing source of information.)
We share our biochemical reactions with all life-forms. We all have the same biochemical basis. We have the same basic cell plan for all life above the bacteria level. Bacteria do not have a cell nucleus or mitochondria; the other life-forms called Eukaryotes do. Eukaryotes are assumed to have evolved from bacteria. We have similar proteins and the proteins are coded for by similar DNA sequences.
There is evidence that our mitochondria, our main sources for converting food energy into a form usable by the cell are really remnants of other bacteria which were swallowed up by an ancestral bacteria - or maybe lived symbiotically inside them (I don't remember what the thinking is on that). Gradually some of their genes were transferred to the nuclear chromosome and they stopped being independent bacteria. There still are separate mitochondrial chromosomes within the cell, separate from the main chromosomes in the nucleus, that still provide the information for some mitochondrial proteins. There is evidence for this. (The same process is thought to have been responsible for plants having chloroplasts in their cells - one bacteria initially inside another one. It is also a possibility for some other cell organelles.)
If you compare the DNA between mammals (us) and even simple organisms like yeast or tiny worms like nematodes, etc., there is a large amount of similarity. This is because mammals are built of cells, and the basic cell mechanisms are the same.
If you look at vertebrates, their basic structure is the same. If you look at mammals, the basic structure is very much the same. We have the same bones, the same organs, cells, biochemistry. There are variations, but they are variations based on the same basic plan.
Creationists often say that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat; that while there is a lot of variation in dog breeds they are all dogs. It is true that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat or a bear. Here are some of the times that evolutionary biology thinks might have elapsed since the divergence of some of these types of animals: from a carnivore ancestor, the cat line (felids) may have branched off 37-40 million years ago, bears the same, canids (dog-like animals) 32-35 mya. From some cat ancestor, tigers may have branched 1-2 mya, cheetahs, 3-4 mya, the cat which was the source of the house cat, 1-3 mya.
For bears, the giant panda branched off 12 mya, the line leading to the bears like black bears and brown bears and polar bears, 4-6 mya, black bears, 2.5-3.5 mya, brown bears 1.5 mya, polar bear .07 mya.
For canids, the red fox type species 9-12 mya, the canis species 6-7 mya, the wolf (dogs are a now listed as a subspecies of wolf) 1-2, coyote, 3-4 mya, jackals 2-3 mya.
I may have some of these wrongs, and the numbers could definitely have been tweaked since this paper was written, But they give a general idea of the times that biology is talking about.
You may think it's all nonsense yourself, but it makes no sense to ask a biologist why a dog doesn't give birth to a cat, when what evolutionary biology says is that there is 35 million years of time between them. Even coyotes and wolves, which can still hybridize, have been separate for 4 million years. Why would anyone think that the fact that a dog doesn't give birth to a cat is an argument against evolution? Evolution doesn't at all think that that happened. It took many millions of years for the mutations that separate dogs and cats to take place and get incorporated into the genome.
And think how similar they are. Four legs, tail, ears, face, fur, guts - all those basic things are the same. Of course there are differences, but there are great similarities between dogs and cats, even more between dogs and bears.
If you've had dogs and cats you may have noticed that dogs like to eat sweet things like cookies, while cats are uninterested in them. Cats are more purely carnivorous than dogs (they are called hypercarnivores). Cat species don't eat fruit in the wild; dog species can eat some (although wolves not as much as coyotes). Raccoons eat some fruit. Some bears eat honey. Ripe fruits can have a sweet taste from the sugars in them.
It turns out that cats have lost their taste receptor for sweetness. people have it, mice and rats have it, dogs have it, many mammals have it, cats don't. The assumption would be that an ancestral mammal had the sweet receptor, and in particular the ancestral carnivore had it, but cats lost it, maybe because they were eating such a meat-centered diet that a mutation in the sweet receptor didn't cause any problem for them. So instead of causing the ancestral cat who had the mutation to be less successful at living and breeding, it was not a harmful mutation for the cat and eventual spread into the ancestral cat population.
Now at this point, you could say that maybe God just designed the cat without the sweetness receptor in the first place, not that the cat lost it during the course of evolution. But when they looked in the cat genome they found the remnants of the gene for the sweetness receptor. There was a chunk of the gene missing, and that missing chunk had also shifted the code for the rest of the gene so it would be read wrong. then there were some mutations that made bits of code telling the enzymes to stop copying the gene early. So the gene was still there, but too mutated to actually give the message needed to make the protein for the sweetness receptor. The same missing chunk was in 7 house cats plus a tiger plus a cheetah. So you could reasonably assume that those mutations had already happened in ancestral feline species before the ancestors of the lion and the cheetah and the ancestor of the house cat diverged from the ancestral feline line. This fits with what would be predicted by evolutionary biology. It wouldn't have to have been exactly like that because other mutations could have happened afterward and changed things. But in this case it was clear.
Now, I don't expect this to convince you. You have the option of making a guess that God could have done it in exactly that way. You can make up reasons why or you can just assume that you'll never understand God's reasons. I could ask why God gave cats the sweet gene in the first place, only to disable it. But you can probably come up with an argument. Maybe cats were eating fruit back in the garden of Eden before the fall? If so, did God disable the gene or was it a negative consequence of degradation after the fall? You can make up arguments in lots of ways. But why did the exact same mutation happen in lions, cheetahs, and house cats, if they were supposed to be separate lines? there's no reason the mutations would have to have been identical.
But whatever your answer here that supports your view that creationism is possible, I hope you'll at the time see how this little bit of genomic information is exactly consistent with the ideas of evolutionary biology.
(This was probably a bit rambling. I hope it made sense.)
A little comment about the woodpecker video. All this drama about the woodpecker banging his head on the tree and smashing his brain. What about pain? What about learning? I was watching a young jay (NOT a woodpecker) and he was pecking something on top of a rock. I couldn't see what. Then he was pecking something on an iron fence post. Why didn't HE bash in his brain? Could it be that birds have instincts and/or learn as they grow up how hard to peck before it hurts, and whether to test an unknown material gently at first to see if it hurts or if it yields like rotten wood? The whole bashing-in-the-brain scenario is so silly.
Whether anything I post is the slightest bit reasonable or convincing to you, I have to say that I have read so many fascinating things while thinking about the woodpecker video and your posts. It's a pleasure, and at the same time daunting at how information is out there.
rereadsing your really long post I noticed that my sheep example is one answer to the #7 question.
Here's a brief answer to question 6 on that list:
"6. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? doesn't sound like "natural selection" to me. How do you explain this?"
It isn’t the individual animal, but the animal’s genes that need to survive. Survival in this case means the ability for the animal to live long enough to reproduce and pass its genes on to another generation which is healthy enough etc. to be able to reproduce also.
Imagine a female bear with a mutation that makes it infertile. Without the stress of producing and feeding and guarding cubs, maybe that bear will live longer and be healthier than the other bears. But since it can’t pass the mutated gene on to any descendants, that mutated gene will die out even though the bear itself lives longer. Imagine a mutation which makes the bear stop taking care of its cubs earlier so that only half of them live long enough to reproduce. The gene will get passed on, but there will be more of the regular gene because there will be more surviving bears that have that gene. So the mutated gene will probably drop out of the population.
It's not that the animals 'want to' make more of their species, but that only animals whose inherited genes have produced successful reproductive behavior in the past can even exist.
Or something like that.
"Imagine a female bear......"
"maybe that bear will......"
"Imagine a mutation which makes the bear......"
"Or something like that......"
(This is highdesert; blogger isn't taking my password, so I'll try anonymous)
Hey, Joe, I was trying to explain it to you (which is what the question asked for), not give evidence for it. Don't imagine a bear if you don't want to; the example is true for any animal now or in the past, and it's very straightforward. An animal that doesn't reproduce doesn't pass on its genes, so the genes that contributed to its not reproducing don't survive.
Evolutionary biology doesn't say that animals 'want' to have genetic changes that will make species different in future generations and that somehow the 'wanting' makes it happen. There's no wanting or planning for the future in evolution. It depends on what genes get passed on in each generation.
My whole point is that your argument is pure speculation. Why would you attempt to explain anything at all with no evidence for it? By which means do you come to your conclusions since you have no evidence? This is why I point out your "imagine..." and your "maybe...." If Evolution is a proven fact then we should see evidence for it, solid empirical evidence. But the only thing I can see are assumptions and "maybe it could have happened this way...." arguments. This would be unacceptable in a court of law if you were trying to prove your case for evolution.
Joe
Post a Comment