@gmh1206 Uneducated guess here: I assume it was an abrupt mutation that was passed on because it allowed the bird to hunt tree born insects that would have been much harder for 3+1 birds to get at. Readily available food probably gave them enough of an advantage to continue to evolve into the modern woodpecker and even the parrot which has a beak suited for cracking nuts and using the 2+2 feet to grip those nuts. I should have researched before posting but that's my guess.
How does the woodpecker foot structure evolve? Given that most birds have three toes pointing forwards and one back (3+1), how do we arrive at a woodpecker with 2+2? Was it incremental i.e. did the one toe slowly swivel round one fraction of a degree per generation? Or perhaps it was punctuated with one proto-woodpecker came out of its egg laid by its 3+1 parents with all the bones, ligaments and muscles good to go in a 2+2 configuration?
This presentation is so wordy, it attempt to impress rather than given straight forward theory. I find it lacks some geniune motive but rather denotes opposing views even Darin himself credits by saying "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor."
What else would they have evolved from? Reptiles maybe, but there are transitional fossils that show the change from dinosaur to bird. Many of the bones you find in a chicken or turkey are very similar to those that you find in dromeosaurs (spelling?).
I have a feeling that if I ask you where the aliens are mentioned in the Bible, you'll tell me that the Bible was created by people who are trying to control people.
So I ask you this instead: How do you know about god without using the Bible?
@DonMeaker I agree, and further that statement to all religious texts. I say that because once you assign adjectives to a deity, it becomes testable. And we all know that no deity actually has stood up to any testing beyond faith. ....And faith isn't a test.
@Remagoen Faith in tests is also faith. Just as Oscar Wilde characterized a fox hunt as the "Unspeakable in pursuit of the Uneatable", divinity is "Unknown and Unknowable"
@DonMeaker Fancy way to talk about faith while still being wrong. There is no requirement to have "faith" in tests. Or, if you insist on using the word "faith", please be aware of the multiple meanings of the word.
To continue what I said earlier, once you assign adjectives to something, is it truly unknowable? I think not, because you obviously know something about it, don't you?
Interesting quote too, but just cause you quote someone intelligent doesn't mean your argument is any more valid.
@Remagoen Just because you assign adjectives doesn't mean you know something. After all, your adjectives might be wrong. I know this from my personal experience with my ex-wife. The second quote about unknown and unknowable is from the Buddha. Tests you devise may succeed or fail because of something you don't understand. The most interesting tests are the ones where you get results you didn't expect. Then you have an opportunity to devise a new paradigm.
@DonMeaker I completely agree with your last two statements, however, the scientific method was designed to weed out unknown variables and other test contaminants so you don't need to rely upon "faith".
Further, if your adjectives are wrong, then what you believe through faith is also wrong. For instance, you spoke of the divine earlier. Are you sure it's divine? Tests will prove or disprove that adjectives. And once it's proven or disproven...you -know- something about it.
@Remagoen Scientific method is for proving truth as finding error. The way you find error is to make a prediction, based on what you think you know. Then you do the test, and compare your results to your prediction. When they are both the same, then you have not found error, and your theoretical paradigm is useful. When they differ, your theoretical paradigm can be improved. Rather than faith, we must approach with skepticism. I doubt, therefore I think must come before I think therefore I am.
@DonMeaker I partially stand corrected. I phrased what the scientific method is poorly and said it was something it kinda wasn't. I meant it has a built in mechanic of weeding out unknown variables, not designed to. What you said in reply to that was what it was designed to do and how it works.
But how does that relate to what you were saying before, unless it was intended to (rightfully) correct me...?
@Remagoen I figure we are mostly on the same side. But I am skeptical of statements that say science shows ___X__. Actually Science doesn't show X is true, it shows that Y can not be true. It is true that it is often good design to design an "orthogonal" experiement, so you test only one thing at a time. Other times, multiple things are tested, and the interaction is the prediction being tested.
@DonMeaker Hmm... There is nothing about that I'll disagree with. Perhaps we're on the same side of the fence, but different places in the yard? Heh...
Knight, to repeat, gradual hyoid lengthening to positions around the skull can be observed as chicks develop into adults and variation in hyoidal length is also observed among different species. These observations clearly suggest how development happened over time. Natural selection and mutation provide the statistically sound and well-vetted evolutionary mechanisms that you long for. As they evolved, woodpeckers afforded no attention to the biased statistical reasoning of other species.
You explain all the incredible, unique attributes of the woodpecker, YET have absolutely no rational way to use evolution to explain them. The tongue for example, in one species as you pointed out goes behind the skull. How can you be reasonable and rational and explain this using evolution?
To make my question simple, how many unique differences are in the woodpecker? Now, with all of these differences you state time and mutations manufactured the current woodpecker. With a unique tongue that has glue, then a solvent, barbs, etc etc.. Seems to me the odds of these many traits all coming together over time for a specific purpose is once again like everything in evolution, mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. Evolution is not a "reasonable" theory.
Well spoken video, but still you are only observing two things. Variation within species. And where you lost me was the other thing. Minor errors in logic that you attribute to Creationist. I really don't care what Creationists say. I'm only interested in Science. If I want to know what Creattion has to say I read the Bible.
When discussing the evolution of the wood pecker you must also consider the evolution of it's prey. As the wood pecker required better hunting skills to get a meal, only the insects and grubs able to burrough deeper and escape detection could survive to replicate it's traits. Great Video+++++Thanks
This has been flagged as spam show
it's no doubt that God created all things in this universe.
But soon, God will destroy this earth and universe.
Judgment Day begins on May 21, 2011
wwwYoutubeCom/watch?v=0SVrlm4BXFM
wwwEBibleFellowshipCom/WeCanKnow/
wwwWorldEndsMay21Com
FamilyRadioCom
may God have mercy on us sinners!
WeCanKnowDottCom 1 year ago
Still no reply huh? Anyone else like to have a go at clearing this up?
How did a 2 + 2 toe woodpecker evolve from a 3 + 1 toe ancestor? Gradually or punctuated? Maybe I'm missing an option?
Can someone resolve this please!
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Uneducated guess here: I assume it was an abrupt mutation that was passed on because it allowed the bird to hunt tree born insects that would have been much harder for 3+1 birds to get at. Readily available food probably gave them enough of an advantage to continue to evolve into the modern woodpecker and even the parrot which has a beak suited for cracking nuts and using the 2+2 feet to grip those nuts. I should have researched before posting but that's my guess.
cjodell 1 month ago
Can I challenge you on just one point?
How does the woodpecker foot structure evolve? Given that most birds have three toes pointing forwards and one back (3+1), how do we arrive at a woodpecker with 2+2? Was it incremental i.e. did the one toe slowly swivel round one fraction of a degree per generation? Or perhaps it was punctuated with one proto-woodpecker came out of its egg laid by its 3+1 parents with all the bones, ligaments and muscles good to go in a 2+2 configuration?
gmh1206 1 year ago
thanks InReasonWeTrust. Really nice video.Just what I have been looking for.
stratocaster539 1 year ago
This presentation is so wordy, it attempt to impress rather than given straight forward theory. I find it lacks some geniune motive but rather denotes opposing views even Darin himself credits by saying "Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor."
OomPoppaMowMow 1 year ago
Does anyone think that birds evolved from dinosaurs?
RobDeManc 3 years ago
Ummm...Yes.
Duh.
What else would they have evolved from? Reptiles maybe, but there are transitional fossils that show the change from dinosaur to bird. Many of the bones you find in a chicken or turkey are very similar to those that you find in dromeosaurs (spelling?).
leecristo 3 years ago
Thanks. I heard it on a documentary ages ago but didn't know it had been proven yet.
RobDeManc 3 years ago
a birds foot always reminds me of a dinosaur.
all the vids on this channel are so cool. thank you for putting these together.
aHeavenscent 2 years ago
Comment removed
Draco12o12 2 years ago
@Draco12o12
I have a feeling that if I ask you where the aliens are mentioned in the Bible, you'll tell me that the Bible was created by people who are trying to control people.
So I ask you this instead: How do you know about god without using the Bible?
Remagoen 2 years ago
@Remagoen Which G-d? Jupiter is not mentioned, nor is Thor, Odin, or Ahura Mazda. The Bible is a pretty poor religious text if you ask me.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I agree, and further that statement to all religious texts. I say that because once you assign adjectives to a deity, it becomes testable. And we all know that no deity actually has stood up to any testing beyond faith. ....And faith isn't a test.
Remagoen 1 year ago
@Remagoen Faith in tests is also faith. Just as Oscar Wilde characterized a fox hunt as the "Unspeakable in pursuit of the Uneatable", divinity is "Unknown and Unknowable"
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Fancy way to talk about faith while still being wrong. There is no requirement to have "faith" in tests. Or, if you insist on using the word "faith", please be aware of the multiple meanings of the word.
To continue what I said earlier, once you assign adjectives to something, is it truly unknowable? I think not, because you obviously know something about it, don't you?
Interesting quote too, but just cause you quote someone intelligent doesn't mean your argument is any more valid.
Remagoen 1 year ago
@Remagoen Just because you assign adjectives doesn't mean you know something. After all, your adjectives might be wrong. I know this from my personal experience with my ex-wife. The second quote about unknown and unknowable is from the Buddha. Tests you devise may succeed or fail because of something you don't understand. The most interesting tests are the ones where you get results you didn't expect. Then you have an opportunity to devise a new paradigm.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I completely agree with your last two statements, however, the scientific method was designed to weed out unknown variables and other test contaminants so you don't need to rely upon "faith".
Further, if your adjectives are wrong, then what you believe through faith is also wrong. For instance, you spoke of the divine earlier. Are you sure it's divine? Tests will prove or disprove that adjectives. And once it's proven or disproven...you -know- something about it.
Remagoen 1 year ago
@Remagoen Scientific method is for proving truth as finding error. The way you find error is to make a prediction, based on what you think you know. Then you do the test, and compare your results to your prediction. When they are both the same, then you have not found error, and your theoretical paradigm is useful. When they differ, your theoretical paradigm can be improved. Rather than faith, we must approach with skepticism. I doubt, therefore I think must come before I think therefore I am.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I partially stand corrected. I phrased what the scientific method is poorly and said it was something it kinda wasn't. I meant it has a built in mechanic of weeding out unknown variables, not designed to. What you said in reply to that was what it was designed to do and how it works.
But how does that relate to what you were saying before, unless it was intended to (rightfully) correct me...?
Remagoen 1 year ago
@Remagoen I figure we are mostly on the same side. But I am skeptical of statements that say science shows ___X__. Actually Science doesn't show X is true, it shows that Y can not be true. It is true that it is often good design to design an "orthogonal" experiement, so you test only one thing at a time. Other times, multiple things are tested, and the interaction is the prediction being tested.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Hmm... There is nothing about that I'll disagree with. Perhaps we're on the same side of the fence, but different places in the yard? Heh...
Remagoen 1 year ago
@aHeavenscent and our DNA is 99% same as the pig. the pig is our closest ancester but they wont tell uss! Why!?
WritingMotor 2 years ago
@WritingMotor No, it isn't. Please get your facts straight
Remagoen 1 year ago
@RobDeManc I do.
Remagoen 1 year ago
great video.
also, I use "Free Sound Project" site as well for cool sound effects.
ndjarnag 3 years ago
Knight, to repeat, gradual hyoid lengthening to positions around the skull can be observed as chicks develop into adults and variation in hyoidal length is also observed among different species. These observations clearly suggest how development happened over time. Natural selection and mutation provide the statistically sound and well-vetted evolutionary mechanisms that you long for. As they evolved, woodpeckers afforded no attention to the biased statistical reasoning of other species.
InReasonWeTrust 4 years ago
Ha! An absolutely perfect response.. and a great video as well.
SofaKingLoaded 4 years ago 3
You explain all the incredible, unique attributes of the woodpecker, YET have absolutely no rational way to use evolution to explain them. The tongue for example, in one species as you pointed out goes behind the skull. How can you be reasonable and rational and explain this using evolution?
knightswrath000 4 years ago
To make my question simple, how many unique differences are in the woodpecker? Now, with all of these differences you state time and mutations manufactured the current woodpecker. With a unique tongue that has glue, then a solvent, barbs, etc etc.. Seems to me the odds of these many traits all coming together over time for a specific purpose is once again like everything in evolution, mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. Evolution is not a "reasonable" theory.
knightswrath000 4 years ago
Great video.
cdk007 4 years ago
Best video about woodpeckers I've ever seen.
Quizzic 4 years ago
Well spoken video, but still you are only observing two things. Variation within species. And where you lost me was the other thing. Minor errors in logic that you attribute to Creationist. I really don't care what Creationists say. I'm only interested in Science. If I want to know what Creattion has to say I read the Bible.
harmono 4 years ago
When discussing the evolution of the wood pecker you must also consider the evolution of it's prey. As the wood pecker required better hunting skills to get a meal, only the insects and grubs able to burrough deeper and escape detection could survive to replicate it's traits. Great Video+++++Thanks
CHAS1422 4 years ago
Well put!
Never, does nature say one thing and wisdom another. "Juvenal"
danielnz1 4 years ago
Excellent video. Calm, rational and sane. Good work.
hairyreasoner 4 years ago
Well thought out well spoken vid... thanks.
RosieDesire 4 years ago
i suppose the real question might be: how much wood could a woodpecker peck if a woodpecker could peck wood..... :)
hellshade2 4 years ago
Great video.
worldlystone 4 years ago