Support NeoGAF

[Sutton Dagger]

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

I find this interesteding and want to hear an evolutionists point of view on it.

I'm not being facetious but I suggest reading some books on Evolutionary theory before having debates on the subject. Though I don't think it's his best book, Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth is a great starting point if you aren't too familiar with the subject.

 

[Lesath]

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

I find this interesteding and want to hear an evolutionists point of view on it.

You appear polite, and yet so unwilling to read. From the article:

"Many other interesting adaptations are seen in different species of woodpeckers. Some species, for example, have modified joints between certain bones in the skull and upper jaw, as well as muscles which contract to absorb the shock of the hammering. Strong neck and tail-feather muscles, and a chisel-like bill are other hammering adaptations which are seen in some species. The same creationist sources which present inaccurate information about the tongue often claim that the sheer number of adaptations found in woodpeckers provide an argument against evolution. They state that all of these adaptations would have to have came about "at the same time," or they would all have been useless. Of course, such an argument ignores the fact that many species of woodpeckers alive today lack these adaptations, or possess them in a reduced form.

The flicker, for instance, uses its long tongue primarily to grab prey from the ground or from under loose bark. It has few shock-absorbing adaptations, and prefers to feed on the ground or to chip away at rotting wood and bark, habits observed in birds outside of the woodpecker family (7). A "continuum" in skull structures, from little- to highly-specialized for pounding is seen in different genera (groups of related species) of woodpeckers alive today.(8) In his classic "Birds of America," John James Audubon describes the slight gradations in hyoid horn length found in different species of living woodpeckers (9). "

...and the citations relevant to your query:

7. Short, LL. 1973. "Woodpecking" by a Red-Throated Barbet. The Auk, 90: 909-910 - This source describes woodpecker-like hammering and feeding in species outside the woodpecker family and sharing no woodpecker-unique adaptations. The author provides an interesting hypothesis for the evolutionary divergence of woodpeckers and barbets.

8. Kirby, VC. 1980. An adaptive modification in the ribs of woodpeckers and piculets (Picidae). The Auk, 1980; 97(3): 521-532 - Describes a continuum of rib adaptations in less- and more-specialized woodpecker species. Comments on earlier work which found a similar continuum in skull specializations (Burt, WH. 1930. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 32: 455-524).

EDIT: This is all I will offer on the matter. If you want further discussion, bump the evolution thread.

 

[Drkirby]

Interesting, but his should be bolded:

This sounds more like a critic from anther scientists, saying he think the experiment should be redone with a type of cell that was always single celled, then some rreligious zealot trying to deny eveolution.

 

[Esiquio]

So all they had to do was centrifuge the culture and inoculate the next batch, just like real evolution. Interesting.

 

[Zoda]

Actually read and research some basic evolutionary theory before just assuming it doesn't exist. Come back then. Don't worry we'll still be here.

I have, friend. And it says that (obviously) those that pecked and died wouldn't carry on traits. And those who did weren't capable of pecking very far or very deep...

well then how the hell would it get food then if it waasn't able to detect the vibrations that the bugs make in the tree like it can now?

 

[Divvy]

I have, friend. And it says that (obviously) those that pecked and died wouldn't carry on traits. And those who did weren't capable of pecking very far or very deep...

well then how the hell would it get food then if it waasn't able to detect the vibrations that the bugs make in the tree like it can now?

From other insects? You know, like most other birds? What kind of question is that?

 

[Drkirby]

Interesting, how does the theory explain life forming from non living matter then?

It doesn't. The Theory of Evolution and The Hypothesis on the Origin of Life are two separate aspects. The Theory of Evolution doesn't concern the origin of life.

 

[CornBurrito]

I figured the part about the monkey turning into a human "within 2 generations" would tip you off.

Oh come on, you act as if creationists haven't asked for equally ridiculous "proofs."

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

Are you aware that things can evolve to suit a different purpose? The reinforced skull did not necessarily have to evolve out a need to peck at trees.

Also I suggest you go over talkorigins.

Just a question, are you a creationist, or do you just not believe in evolutionary theory?

(You are essentially arguing irreducible incomplexity. There are numerous videos and books that answer this question.)

 

[Zoda]

From other insects? You know, like most other birds? What kind of question is that?

If it got insects like most other birds, why would it need to peck the tree? Wouldn't it just get food that way since its easier?

 

[GaimeGuy]

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

I find this interesteding and want to hear an evolutionists point of view on it.

That's not how the natural selection mechanism of evolution works :/

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

I find this interesteding and want to hear an evolutionists point of view on it.

You clearly don't understand. Some people have thicker skulls than others, and people with especially fragile skulls that get bumped in the head are going to have problems. Since the worst of the lot get killed or horrifically injured, the mean skull thickness increases because they didn't get a chance to reproduce.

The essence of evolution is that individual differences exist, and that they are at least partially hereditary. Small random variations will lead to significant changes over time. We know the mechanisms by which this works (DNA being responsible, and changing from generation to generation via mutation and other processes).

 

[Divvy]

If it got insects like most other birds, why would it need to peck the tree? Wouldn't it just get food that way since its easier?

The bugs they get from treats are more likely to be grubs and whatnot (fat, defenseless bugs), They're far more nutritious and easier to catch than other bugs with natural defenses.

I don't understand how anyone can argue against evolution. Logically, it makes so much obvious sense! It basically boils down to organisms that are more likely to survive in a habitat tend to survive!

 

[HephalumpsAndWoozles]

*WARNING* Thread Title could be dangerous to Creationists' minds * Reader Discretion is Advised

 

[fossil coast]

Just a head's up for people engaging with Zoda here: The woodpecker thing is a stock creationist bit. See: http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

Zoda, if you are sincerely interested in answering this, talkorigins clowns it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Just a head's up for people engaging with Zoda here: The woodpecker thing is a stock creationist bit. See: http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

Zoda, if you are sincerely interested in answering this, talkorigins clowns it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Good post, I highly recommend talkorigins as well.

 

[Zoda]

Just a head's up for people engaging with Zoda here: The woodpecker thing is a stock creationist bit. See: http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm

Zoda, if you are sincerely interested in answering this, talkorigins clowns it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Intersting stuff. Does talkorigins tackle the structure of a giraffe's neck/brain? (Since if they had to lean down to drink with a normal neck theyd black out?)

 

[Divvy]

Intersting stuff. Does talkorigins tackle the structure of a giraffe's neck/brain? (Since if they had to lean down to drink with a normal neck theyd black out?)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

 

[keuja]

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

 

[CornBurrito]

Intersting stuff. Does talkorigins tackle the structure of a giraffe's neck/brain? (Since if they had to lean down to drink with a normal neck theyd black out?)

Talkorigins handles almost everything. It is one of the best resources out there if you have basic questions about evolution.

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

I <3 you.

I especially love how natural bananas (ones not cultivated by humans) are these huge unwieldy beasts, filled with tons of inedible seeds.

 

[Scrow]

God's magnificence at work here. Praise be to Him and His glory.

 

[Nocebo]

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

It's funny how grown men can so easily sound like children.

 

[Stat Flow]

Like a boss

 

[TacticalFox88]

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

.....I think I just lost a few braincells. Holy Fucking SHIT!

 

[AiTM]

Have they been able to create A single cell?

 

[mre]

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

Linking to these videos without properly labeling them should be bannable, much like a RickRoll is. Shit hurts your brain, man.

 

[Nocebo]

Have they been able to create A single cell?

No, learn to read the OP.

 

[fossil coast]

I especially love how natural bananas (ones not cultivated by humans) are these huge unwieldy beasts, filled with tons of inedible seeds.

That's the very best part. Like the Gros Michel that it replaced, the Cavendish is vulnerable to disease that has no ability to evolve a resistance to - without seeds it can't reproduce naturally. Only a matter of time before some enterprising fungus or virus evolves to prey on it in earnest.

 

[kottila]

Intersting stuff. Does talkorigins tackle the structure of a giraffe's neck/brain? (Since if they had to lean down to drink with a normal neck theyd black out?)

Read this abstract;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657096
Tldr: they have expanding jugular veins in the neck that can store large volumes of blood

 

[wolfmat]

I for one welcome our yeast overlords.

 

[ronito]

If got created man out of dirt.
Why we still got dirt?

 

[SRG01]

Interesting, but his should be bolded:

Yeah, it would've been more groundbreaking if it was done with something other than yeast...

 

[Nocebo]

I hope their experiments with Chlamydomonas will also yield some nice results.

 

[jambo]

Proof that evolution is a lie.

Proof of intelligent design.

 

[maomaoIYP]

Shit man, the false color image in the OP makes my skin crawl. I'm half expecting them to hatch.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

Fucking peanut butter.

 

[scar tissue]

SCIENCE!
evolution at work, totally badass
i'm just waiting for the real-life equivalent of the forced evolutionary virus from fallout, that ought to finally shut those darn creationists up

as for the woodpecker: the reinforced skull so it doesn't get headaches is a really simple evolution
at first, ia woodpecker couldn't hammer at a tree for very long without getting a headache
thanks to random mutation, some woodpeckers hatched with thicker skulls
those woodpeckers had an advantage over the others and after some time, none of the original woodpeckers were left because those with thicker skulls were more successful

 

[wetwired]

damn, Julianne Moore is looking especially hot in that picture.

 

[Dice]

Well I for one welcome our new peanut butter overlords.

 

[Riddick]

Now woodpecker is just one example, but both of these would need to be functional from the beginning in order for the woodpecker to live, right?

This is brilliant, simply brilliant. Comedians can't come up with this stuff, I literally laughed out loud.

 

[Raist]

We share a common ancestor with apes. We did not descend from monkeys.

Yes we did. We're apes, and also monkeys. Sorry mate.

 

[FairyD]

Then explain peanut butter you damn scientists with your fancy coats.

 

[scar tissue]

Yes we did. We're apes, and also monkeys. Sorry mate.

lol, get your biology straight
we are NOT monkeys

if you simplify things a little, primates consist of 3 groups: monkeys, apes, prosimians (iirc prosimians are paraphyletic but that doesn't matter here)
humans are apes but not monkeys
no ape is a monkey, and no monkey is an ape

the important part is: humans did not descend from today's apes (chimpanzees, gorillas,...)
we had a common ancestor (who was also an ape)

 

[gwarm01]

So all they had to do was centrifuge the culture and inoculate the next batch, just like real evolution. Interesting.

Yes. All they had to do was introduce an environmental stress to which certain organisms were more able to adapt to in order to induce an eventual change in the population. Just like real evolution.

 

[Stinkles]

A little of both. I mean the tongue is possible, but what about the reinforced skull? Surely it couldn't of just banged into a tree and blown its brains out and then said "I wish I could of evolved to have a better skull!"

I find this interesteding and want to hear an evolutionists point of view on it.

You're doing it backwards. Animals born with slightly harder skulls were more successful and survived to breed. Soft skilled animals, in this example, starved and failed to pass on their genes.

 

[theBishop]

They need to do this experiment on a man's rib. The cells will divide into a full-grown woman.

 

[mt1200]

But.. why we still got gorillas?

 

[Krauser Kat]

This is pretty awesome. I love science.

 

[Telosfortelos]

Everyone's ignoring the most important question: how's the beer taste?

 

[Bit-Bit]

lol, get your biology straight
we are NOT monkeys

if you simplify things a little, primates consist of 3 groups: monkeys, apes, prosimians (iirc prosimians are paraphyletic but that doesn't matter here)
humans are apes but not monkeys
no ape is a monkey, and no monkey is an ape

the important part is: humans did not descend from today's apes (chimpanzees, gorillas,...)
we had a common ancestor (who was also an ape)

Well, if you go far back enough. Turns out we are from monkeys.

 

[BitchTits]

lol, these are great. Would love them in t-shirt form.