"How and where did that tongue come from?" Simple: nowhere, because it doesn't exist. Woodpecker tongues emerge from the floor of their mouths just like other birds' tongues. The end that wraps around and enters the nostril in some woodpeckers is the back of the tongue (and it ends inside the bill - it doesn't come out into the mouth).
I don't understand how woodpeckers evolved but I have seen one. In fact I have seen quite a lot.
I don't understand how god evolved either. I have not seen a god, nor do I know anyone who has seen a god, nor have I ever read or heard of anyone ever seeing a god.
Therefore whereas I believe in woodpeckers but I don't believe in gods.
@alanheath Yeah but if a tongue that loops around the head is to have evolved to that point, somewhere down the line that tongue would have been unusable and the bird would have starved to death. It could not have evolved behind the head looping around without making the bird unable to eat. Plus, if you want to see Jesus, let me know, I will show you what you can do to literally have Him revealed to you within a few weeks max. No church, one on one.
Unbelievable that in this day and age where we have accumulated a mountain of evidence for evolution ranging from fossils, DNA, RNA, chromosome nr.2, vestiges, observed speciation, phylogeny, comparative anatomy, biogeography, endogenous retroviruses, cytochrome c, atavisms, homologous structures, endemism, ring species, pesticide resistance etc. etc. etc.
One must be either stupid or insane to reject evolution, which one are you?
This guy is ignorant. Even if how and what the woodpecker evolved from is unknown, it doesn't prove in any way that god exists. It simply means that we don't understand it yet. Dumbass.
@cjspargo812 So youre ignorant? Because even though I dont know how or when or why God came into existance, doesn't prove in any way that evolution is right. It simply means that we dont understand it yet.
@atgblue1 Ok, I'm going to start off and say that what your saying makes no sense and gives the impression that your quite uneducated (not saying that you are or are not, just what it sounds like). Second, the belief that god does or doesn't exists has little to do with evolution being right or not. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. With this said, there is no evidence real evidence that god exists.
@cjspargo812 I spoke not to flaunt intelligence or to enter a debate on unproven theories, (yes I agree, I cannot prove God exists, likewise no one can prove the big bang theory or such, each point only goes back so far before being stuck with speculation). I just answered in a mirrored way what you said. if we cant explain evolution, that just means we dont understand yet, then I cant explain God, it just means I cant prove it yet. anyways. didn't mean to give an analogy beyond your grasp.
@atgblue1 While you do bring up a good point with us "not understanding evolution", it is not entirely accurate. While we don't fully understand evolution, we do understand many factors of it. With god, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence. The point I'm trying to make is that with evolution, there is factual data that can be studied and researched, while as of now, no one has presented any legitimate evidence that suggests the existence of a omnipotent, all powerful being.
@cjspargo812 maybe it means that you should put your money where your mouth is. if it came from evolution you should have proof if u dont accept my proof until you have your proof to disprove it. im saying it came from god you say it evolved, my evidence is the bible told me so, your evidence is " ihavent found the answer yet?" please get a real answer before you bash me on empty promises.
@gninja92 There is plenty of proof of the evolution of the Woodpecker. We have fossil evidence of woodpecker evolution going back 40 million years and it fits into the nested hierarchy of other species from which it evolved. All the available evidence is only explainable by the theory of evolution.
@cjspargo812 Yeah but if a tongue that loops around the head is to have evolved to that point, somewhere down the line that tongue would have been unusable and the bird would have starved to death. It could not have evolved behind the head looping around without making the bird unable to eat. Plus, if you want to see Jesus, let me know, I will show you what you can do to literally have Him revealed to you within a few weeks max. No church, one on one.
You are confusing things. What the man shows is not that "it is unknown how and what the woodpecker evolved from" but that the woodpecker impossibly can have "evolved from" anything at all. You don't even understand what he is talking about.
Anybody yet point out that it is possible that the tounge, tail and feet of the woodpecker could have evolved at the same time as the bird started to climb trees and eat as it doeas... or even evolve before that and the bird figured a good way to use it's "deformaties"?
I understand the evolutionary change in humans and accept that we can selectively breed in a manner that changes our appearance . I really enjoyed your comment about species not becoming extinct. You have an excellent grasp on the evolutionary theory that maintains all life on earth has a common ancestor . Until all life is dead no specie could actually be extinct because of the relationships. I love life and have that in common with the other life on Earth!
@jamesrking1 Interesting comment. Yes - it's the tree of life that matters and not the individual fruits on the ends of the individual branches. Some branches will die and fall off - and others are being created at the same time.
I do agree - enjoy life and the view from the end of our branch, it's quite a sight.
One small improvement in each generation allows the bird tongue to gradually extend around the back of the woodpeckers head so that it can be the longest bird tongue necessary. Shorter tongued woodpeckers just became extinct and the ones with tongues wrapped around their heads survived. You can imagine how birds diverged and gradually developed bird tongues around the back of their head. I will imagine more and stop thinking life is too complex to happen by chance. Thank you.
@jamesrking1 No, species become extinct - it's individuals who die or have reduced fitness.
Looking at old family photos and examining the height of ceilings and doors at my father's house - my family has grown in height slowly over the past 5 or 6 generations.
Can you imagine this or is that too complex a concept?
All bird's tongues wrap around their heads in this way! The next time you lay your hands on a dead bird make an incision right around the top of its head and you will see - when you pull the head apart, the hyoid apparatus curves around the back of the bird's head past its ears.
The Woodpecker and Flicker are just more extreme variations of this and the tips of the hyoid horns can go all the way around in an adult bird.
Intelligent design is a concept that goes against the idea of or theory of evolution. The woodpecker's tongue evolving around the back of the woodpeckers head to some of us indicate a functioning tongue that could not evolve one improvement at a time as is necessary for evolutionary theory to work. It will never be possible to make all humanity understand that intelligent design is the only way to explain irreducible complexity found in life on earth.
@jamesrking1 There has never been a system found in biology which is irreducibly complex. The concept is argued by ID proponents, but it is not valid in a biological sense. The eye, the woodpecker's tongue or anything else can be explained via evolution. The woodpeckers tongue did not always wrap around it's head like that; however, the tongue might now have been directed to that exact path but ended up that way over many generations of small beneficial changes.
@jamesrking1 There isn't one feature of the Woodpecker that is not perfectly explained by the theory of evolution.
The woodpecker's tongue doesn't "evolve around the back of its head". This is just nonsense you've made up - either out of ignorance of avian physiology - or through willful ignorance in the desire to shoe-horn your God into places he doesn't belong.
The green woodpecker he shows at 4:00 is proof of evolution. It is perhaps the most un-intelligent design ever to put the tongue wrapping around the animal's head. What an inefficient pathway. Creationist are pure comedy, I love watching these to laugh. Before I get any stupid comments to this I am a scientist, and I know what I am talking about. Seriously don't try to debate me with zero understanding of science you will fail.
@jisaid08 So you are a scientist and you know what you're talking about, huh? Well, I must confess my mistake, through confusion, because I was thoroughly convinced that you were a complete fucking imbecile arsehole and puss filled cunt. Again, Please accept my apologies.
@jbooks888 Also I love how on your profile you claim to be "A man of God" and "You love Jebus with all your heart". Way to be very "Jesus like" by immediately telling me that "I am a fucking imbecile arsehole and puss filled cunt". Way to represent your peaceful kind faith. You of course are an idiot for believing in Christianity or creationism, but you also are not a very good follower of Jesus...as I cannot imagine him saying such a thing to me. You sir fail.
Why is a woodpecker able to peck so much wood? God did it, god loves pecking wood! Why, because God said so. But WHY.......Because... God.
God is not an answer to questions! Saying god did it is just another way to admit you have no idea what the hell is going on, or why things the way they are. People like this make me crazy.
If a scientist tells you they "don't have a clue," he/she is being intellectually honest. One may have an idea (hypothesis), but ultimately the correct stance is simply to say that there is insufficient evidence to credibly provide a mechanism by which a particular trait evolved. The lazy explanation?... God did it! This speaker is embarrassingly ignorant of what evolutionary theory says and, broadly, how science works. @4:58: Accusing Evo. Biologists of fitting evidence to the theory? Shameful.
@shaun2135 Saying God did it is not lazy if its the truth. Evolutionists believe in fairytales. They don't want to obey God so they just make up a story to try and eliminate Him from their wretched sinful lives. They're driven by their own lusts. There are many wonders in nature that cannot possibly be explained by a naturalism. But you fools continue to hold onto your false beliefs because to do otherwise would mean having to submit to God. Dishonesty abounds in the evolution hoax.
Assuming there are specks of truth in this video: If woodpeckers and humans aren't related, how does it help brain surgeons to study woodpeckers' skulls?
For the record, this video is factually incorrect. It shows the path of the woodpecker's tongue completely incorrectly!
The woodpecker's tongue is anatomically not much different to any other bird. This speaker would try and have you believe that the Green Woodpecker's tongue cannot be explained by evolution. This is untrue. It is a lie.
@fingleur1 This is a lie. Quick google searches of "bird tongues" and "woodpecker tongue" can disprove your baseless assertion. There are many different bird tongues, each perfectly designed for their function. The bottom line is the woodpecker is "irreducibly complex" and evolution cannot account for it. You're just in denial.
@fingleur1 I never claimed the bird's tongue was "irreducibly complex", I stated that the woodpecker contains certain mechanisms that are irreducibly complex. Please watch from 2:15 to the end of the video again. You'll see that the woodpeckers tongue is also reliant on the solvent in the woodpecker's mouth. That's an example of irreducible complexity. You can't have one without the other. The woodpecker screams intelligent design.
This video is just a pack of lies! It shows the path of the tongue and gets it so laughably wrong it's unbelievable. I can't find any proof of this 'glue factory' and solvent in any literature anywhere - feel free to look yourself and post a citation.
The video also talks of a 'shock absorbing cartilage' to protect the bird's brain. This is another lie.
Lies come naturally to creationists. The truth takes a little longer to absorb.
@ubermechazillatron Now we pinpoint your trouble. You believe what you're told if you think it supports your theory of talking snake. It's a start though. Read what that piece says about the woodpecker's tongue. Then Google "Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue" and read the article (and citations) there.
You'll see that this video is telling lies and there is nothing irreducibly complex about the woodpecker. It's all perfectly explained by evolution.
@fingleur1 Again, the example of the glue like substance on the woodpecker's tongue and the solvent in it's mouth is an example of irreducible complexity (you can't have one without the other and the article makes no mention of this). The article's rebuttal to the woodpecker's tongue pathway is that other birds share a similar structure...okay, now explain how that pathway arose through small incremental steps. It can't.
@ubermechazillatron OK, so now we've established that the anchor point of the tongue is just behind the bird's beak, and that it doesn't in any way pass through the bird's nostril! what is irreducibly complex about that? Over time the tongue has grown longer in fine gradual steps as the hyoid apparatus has lengthened.
It's not irreducible. It remains a tongue and it remains useful to the creature from being just a flap of skin all the way to being a woodpecker's tongue.
@fingleur1 Why on earth would the woodpecker's tongue begin to grow around it's skull in small incremental steps? That makes no sense unless it's tongue was wrapped around it's skull from the very beginning. I'll PM you an Animal Planet article which shows the beginning of the tongue being anchored at the nostril. It does seem as if the video was in error about the precise pathway of the tongue, but the point still stands.
@ubermechazillatron If you dissect any bird you'll find that the hyoid bone grows in a curve around the outside of the bird's brain. It simply has to go that way because there's no room for it to do otherwise. The hyoid provides the support for the bird's tongue which travels as a sheath around the hyoid.
It's the tip of the hyoid horns that can protrude all the way through the bird's nostril and fuse there, In a young bird the horns will not have grown so far.
@ubermechazillatron The bird's tongue grows from a position slightly posterior of the bird's beak. A very early ancestor of the woodpecker would have had teeth and a far shorter 'beak' so all that would be required would be a small triangle of skin like we see in, say a chicken supported between the forks of the hyoid bone - to make sure food does in the right direction.
Almost all birds have barbs on the tongue in varying locations.
@ubermechazillatron You'll find birds' tongues are adapted for their particular careers through evolution.
Your woodpecker misunderstanding comes from an old observation that the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus appears to be 'fused' in the bird's nostril and this was wrongly taken as the anchor point of the tongue. Evolution could not explain the tongue's anchor point jumping in this way from one place to another.
The myth persists because Creationists love to repeat lies.
@fingleur1...And we should believe you why? Can you prove that this video is incorrect? do you have any sources that we can check out to prove your point?
@shakerkhoury8 Absolutely you shouldn't believe me! Never believe what any person tells you - especially if they tell you things you want to hear!
A good explanation can be found on the talkorigins site - Google "Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue". But the author wouldn't want you to take his word for it so check out his citations too!
Make it your job to find out the truth, and how to find the truth.
@jbooks888 Evolution is proven. A theory in science must be proven to be considered a theory. The genetic evidence alone is evidence enough to prove evolution, but we also have a wealth of fossils. Evolution is reality. However, if you prefer to believe bronze age mythology and credit the desert god of bronze age Palestine that is your choice. Why do you think a bunch of scientific illiterates from the bronze age know more than modern scientist?
@fingleur1 Yeah they did, and made us write down notes on what this guy was trying to say for like 8 different animals. But to be fair, the teacher said we are going to watch a movie next week about what atheists have to say about this
@NewSimpleadams It's not really fair on you because what science has to say isn't countered by what religion has to say. They should be covered in completely different lessons. If there are scientific questions to be answered, then leave that to science to sort out.
Can you imagine them allowing a scientist to comment in a religious education class to point out that 'virgin birth' probably just means Mary had been shagging the local shepherd and didn't tell Joseph?
@fingleur1 Oh yeah, judging from your posts, then one can tell, your children must be total retards that cant think for themselves of weigh the evidence and decided. They have dear old retard youtube daddy to tell them what to think wear and learn right?
God made everything and He loves it all. Your comments just show that if God spoke directly to you and cured a blind man right in front of your eyes you would still be antagonistic towards Him. No matter the overwhelming proof you can find these days you are still stubborn. If you really cared as much as you pretend to you would find the truth. The mortality rate these days hovers around 100% so, it's time to consider where you're going next.
Now wait a minute... Did he really said that giraffes are too unperfect to be an evolutionary developed animals and the woodpeckers are too perfect to be one??? Coz that sounds very stupid that way.
@PofTheMagickVincent When you've studied all the features of the 400 species in the biological order Piciforms - and learned about DNA - come back and ask the same question again. You have this one chance to use your life on earth to improve your knowledge of the world around you. Use it. It's what Jesus would do.
@fingleur1 It seems that we are all confused about the great evolution of the woodpecker. Please enlighten us. Tell us how the tongue evolved. With the barbs, the glue, the solvent, Tell us how the hard beak evolved with the shock absorber and the thick cranium. Please enlighten the whole world and tell us how all this stuff evolved one bit at a time over a million years and in what specific order. (i will even be generous and let you totally make up a scenario that makes logical sens
@karamarouge No space here to give you a full thesis on the evolution of the woodpecker as you well know.
If you had a basic understanding of the theory of evolution you could answer your own questions - so I think that may be the place to start. I will try and answer specific questions privately if you wish to send one or two over by PM
@fingleur1 You could simply sum up the facts. For example tell me what evolved first, the beak, the skull, the tongue, the barb on the tongue etc. Very simple put them in order of how they evolved (if they all evolve simultaneously then say so)
You can give us a a lot of info this way. Or better yet, you could simply direct us to the peer reviewed paper that directly addresses the evolution of these amazing features of the woodpecker.
@karamarouge While you're at it - can you find the literature that covers the description of this "glue and solvent" of which you speak and send me that as well please. This isn't a subject I've read on at all.
I'm sure you haven't just taken a creationist video on its word! Boy that would be monumental stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if it was another lie like the path of the tongue in this video.
@fingleur1 Hm if this "solvent" is what is holding up this lesson on evolution, I will gladly release you from the burden of explaining how it came about.
I hope you are not going to come up with some excuse about being too busy or that you have some evidence some where but cant post right now. I would really love to learn what I cant find in any scientific journal, paper, book or anything chronicling this amazing evolution...
@karamarouge There are no 'amazing' features of the woodpecker. The feet, beak and tongue are a design shared by hundreds of species of birds, the toucans, flickers, piculets, wrynecks etc.
All of these species share a common ancestor which also had all these features. The whole family has diverged since creating species with different specialties.
Your questions just demonstrate your lack of understanding of the theory (and fact) of evolution.
@karamarouge Evolution is not linear and evolution is not teleological. Do you understand? It doesn't seem so. If you just play with a piece of paper and draw yourself a dendritic cladogram to describe the known extant and extinct members of Zygodactylidae you'll find you might get a better picture of how evolution works.
but that is not what you were asked. You who insists he knows how these features evolved should provide the answer to the simple question asked. No one asked you for lineage. It wont be found in a drawing of a dendritic cladogram.
Answer the simple question asked. Its beginning to look more and more like you are just obfuscating and that you are completely ignorant of this science you falsely claim to be so well versed in. Prove me wrong. Answer the question asked.
@karamarouge I explained to you that evolution is not linear! Do you not understand that a question of 'what evolved first' is a question that cannot be answered to give you any meaningful help.
Google ensatina salamanders and more generally ring species to learn that variation occurs in the spacial as well as the temporal domain. Then learn about modular evolution and mosaic speciation and you might start to get a handle on what's going on around you.
"'what evolved first' is a question that cannot be answered "
lol. Every one knows you cant answer the question. We all know you are making up bullshit. You dont have the answers, you believe in a bogus theory not based on scientific fact or evidence, but based on faith alone. Then you make fun of people who choose to put their faith in a creator.
lol
Did I ask you about salamanders? No i didnt. Answer the fucking question you were asked!
What evolved first, the beak or the tongue? As long as it's been what you'd classify as a bird it's had a beak and a tongue.
If you can't understand the 'chicken and egg' question, which most children manage by the age of 10, then there's not much hope for you and I think you should stick to picture bible story books for your answers.
@fingleur1 Who in the hell asked you to answer if the beak or tongue evolved first?
you are obfuscating, twisting and turning, trying to change my question into one I clearly did not ask you. I asked you a very simple question. Explain the evolution of the woodpecker's skill, shockabsorber, beak, tongue, with the sticky mucous and barb.
No one here cares about order. No one said anything came first. We just want to know who the whole thing evolved. Stop debauching my question!
@karamarouge These features came about through mutation, natural selection and heritability AKA the theory of evolution.
The population contains natural variation caused by mutations. Certain phenotypes have greater fitness and are therefore the genes and haplotypes that code for these phenotypes increase in frequency in the population over time - RESULTING IN THE FEATURES WE'RE DISCUSSING!
It's called evolution - it's a fact, it's happening all around you.
@fingleur1 You are not answering the specific question you have been asked focused on the so called evolution of the woodpecker as featured in this video. We want facts details etc. What kind of mutation led to the development of this tongue, what exactly was selected for in this process of natural selection.
We want answers. Specific answers to the subject in the video not generalized theories that have never been observed, experimented upon or that are not even falsifiable.
@karamarouge Here's a good article you might care to read:
"Morphoregulation of Avian Beaks: Comparative Mapping of Growth Zone Activities and Morphological Evolution" from the Journal Developmental Dynamics.
When you've studied that and read all articles referenced at the bottom you'll be able to explain just one tiny part of the evolution of the woodpecker.
@fingleur1 Once again. I did not ask you about anything to do with the morphoregulation of Avian beaks. My question was very clear concise and specific.
It that info is indeed in that book, specifically about the evolution of the woodpeckers, beak, its tongue, its shock absorber, the sticky mucous, the bard on the tongue then why dont you simply read those volumes and tell us exactly happened. Because I read them all and there is not a word on this specific subject.
@karamarouge You wanted to know the science that backs up the theory of evolution. I gave you a very small specific example that explains to you the processes that are in play - from which mutations in what genes all the way to the varying expression of which proteins and how that regulates the evolution of shape and size of a bird's beak.
@fingleur1 Um nope..nice try..But you fail again. I do not want to know the science that backs up anything. RATHER WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW THE WOODPECKERS, BEAK, TONGUE WITH BARD AND STICKY MUCOUS, SHOCK ABSORBER AND SKULL EVOLVED!
A very clear concise question that i will not let you obfuscate and squirm away from with bogus answers about morphing bird beaks and silly games like this.
ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED OR CONFESS YOU HAVE NO CLUE!
@karamarouge Ok, so I gave you the overall explanation - which is the theory of evolution, and you don't want that. I gave you a detailed scientific explanation, but you don't want that!
Every bird that pecks will have some sort of shock absorbing brain protection. Do you want a general explanation as to why this is, or do you want a scientific explanation?
Or are you going to admit that you don't actually want either?
@karamarouge You did say (24 hours is a long time I know):
"We want facts details etc. What kind of mutation led to the development of this tongue, what exactly was selected for in this process of natural selection.
We want answers. Specific answers"
Hmm but now you say ... "I do not want to know the science that backs up anything".
@karamarouge Reading the Journal of Zooology and "Woodpecker pecking: how woodpeckers avoid brain injury" I see no mention of a shock-absorbing cartilage.
Where did you lap this lie up then? Would you like to support your claim? I'll take a general explanation or a detailed one ;)
@karamarouge Errr, have you ever heard of a guy called Charles Darwin? He travelled to the Galapagos Islands and noticed that the finches on each island had adapted their beaks to feed on the different food sources available in each locale. It's the most fundamental and basic part of the Origin of Species. If you cannot understand that easy stuff, maybe you should go back to kindergarten and start over.
@CalumGilhooly OMG...I am betting that this is another dumb american evolutionist who is completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin was completely wrong about the finches!
But I dont have time to get into that. All I will ask you, hey bozo, how are the finch beaks related to the woodpecker? Does the finch have a tongue like the woodpecker? or skull?
Who in the fuck asked you about finches. I clearly asked about the woodpecker.
@karamarouge Oh my science! I'm betting that this is another incredibly idiotic Chwistian from anywhere in the world, (they always form the dimmest members of any society). If you had bothered to take your God Goggles of a moment to check my channel, you would have seen that I am a Scot. In what way was Darwin wrong about the finches? Please explain your assertion. They are related to the woodpecker, because they show that birds adapt to their environment quickly and effectively, Dumb theist.
@CalumGilhooly lol..I dont have time to teach some one so pathetic he claims to have a youtube channel yet he cant google simple facts and find out the truth about the bogus science he was taught as a school in idiot.
Hey moron the supposed changes he noticed were only in size. Turns out he was wrong because the sizes actually oscillate depending on weather dumbass!
It still has nothing to do with the woodpecker's beak, tongue, skull etc.
@karamarouge bogus science? What, evolution? Hahahahaha, you are as stupid as they come. Evolution is proven science and only morons blinded by their God Goggles are still in denial about it. Many theists, including bishops believe in evolution. Their beak size changes with the weather? WTF? So the adaptations that developed to allow them to feed off different plants and insects and even different parts of the same plant are due to rain and temp? Hahahahaha. What a cretin!
@CalumGilhooly Like i said I dont have time to teach some internet retard the very science he falsely claims to be educated in. You dont want to pick up a biology book then it is your right to remain stupid. Just dont expect me to go out of my way to relieve you of that stupidity.
If evolution has been proven then you would not have a problem answering my simple question about how the woodpecker evolved. Either answer it or do me a favor, please fuck off !
@karamarouge You couldn't even teach your granny to suck eggs you under evolved chimp. Tell me why you imagine the adaptations of SOME woodpeckers make it a prime example for creation theory? There are many woodpeckers with few of the adaptations you love to cite. The sap sucker has a short tongue, the flicker has a long tongue but no adaptations to allow hammering on a tree trunk as it feeds on the ground or by chipping at rotten bark/wood much as other non woodpecker species do, EPIC FAIL! lol
@karamarouge You couldn't even teach your granny to suck eggs you under evolved chimp. Tell me why you imagine the adaptations of SOME woodpeckers make it a prime example for creation theory? There are many woodpeckers with few of the adaptations you love to cite. The sap sucker has a short tongue, the flicker has a long tongue but no adaptations to allow hammering on a tree trunk as it feeds on the ground or by chipping at rotten bark/wood much as other non woodpecker species do, EPIC FAIL! lol
@OmfgItsHenu you were trying to prove evolution through natural selection which is impossible.
Evolution relies on unsupported mutations that have never been witnessed or ever will. the mutation increasing the complexity of the DNA or the length. while observed mutations like deformities are negative 9999/10000.
@OmfgItsHenu just about every mutation is an error in the DNA, a removal of part of the DNA, or gene scrambling in DNA which does not improve genetic complexity btw. and if you actually had a positive mutation i would almost 100% guarantee that the enzymes would still fix it back to normal and it would be lost forever. So many factors against evolution, by the time you got enough beneficial mutations to grow an extra hair the species would have died out 5 times over.
@SamuelJCir So close ... but harmful mutations kill individuals and not populations! There is a mechanism for removing harmful mutations from the gene pool - it's called premature death. There is no mechanism for removing beneficial mutations from a population's gene pool.
(well, actually there is - it's called speciation but you probably don't want to think about that one.)
@fingleur1 harmful mutations either cause the individual to become infertile, kill them, or give them deformed genetics. Either way most abnormalities are not passed on in the genetics, and the ones that are are always harmfull. enzymes destroy most of them there hasnt been 1 good mutation that i can or anyone else can think of.
@SamuelJCir "there hasnt been 1 good mutation that i can or anyone else can think of"
Try studying the subject, then you may be able to think of lots.
Here's a nice one for you. Most mammals are colourblind. You (presuming you're not one of the 1:5 males who are still colourblind) have benefited from a mutation that gives you colour vision.
@OmfgItsHenu You missed the point of the video. The point is the woodpecker is "irreducibly complex". Certain components of the woodpecker rely on the existence of other parts. Evolution works in small incremental steps. Evolution is linear and possesses no foresight. Therefore, it is inefficient when accounting for "irreducibly complex" organisms.
Thank you creationists for continuing to make it harder and harder for people to come to God by making it and issue of Faith vs Science. Lol you people will one day answer for this you can bet on that. You may not exactly loose your salvation but you will be called out on it.
@RomanHistoryNut When every single Bishop and Cardinal and Chief Rabbi and Pontificator on the planet would agree with you, you do have to wonder why these guys don't just tell their flock to grow up and get into the 21st century.
Hmm. is it something to do with the fact that stupid people hand over more money and ask fewer questions about what you're doing with it? And people given education might realise that other religions have just as much validity as their own?
convincing the atheist isn't a matter of logical discussion, only the power of God can wake them. When evolution is unsustainable they will run to a new theory that denies God. Dawkins himself was willing to admit their may have been aliens behind it all. It's the 'anything but God' mentallity that tells the true nature of this debate, it isn't logical, it's spiritual.
@servant714 The theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are millions of theists worldwide who also manage to go to school, become educated, and realise that arguing against the theory of evolution is as stupid as claiming that earthquakes are caused by God stamping his feet or dementia is caused by demons.
@fingleur1 evolution and atheism are almost synonymous, arguing against evolution is stupid? Explain two things to me.
How does the universe come from nothing?
How does information get added to genome?
Forget it, you[ll have some pseudo scientific reasoning, but I already know that neither question can be factually answered, so anyone who insists evolution is anything more than a philosophy is by proxy a liar with alterior motives. T
@servant714 I've no idea how the universe came about for certain. And neither do you.
But we do know that new DNA comes about through mutation, gene duplication and insertion by viruses. Aneuploidy and ployploidy and gene duplication are hardly pseudoscience.
@fingleur1 you see what I mean, your trying to say that information is added through mutation, that is the pseudoscience I was talking about. Mutation is never beneficial and never adds new information. There is no amount of logic that can move you from your worldview. If you don't feel something inside that draws you to God then you aren't called, you are rejected by God and there is nothing I can say or do to change that. It is your soul I argue for, why do you argue?
@servant714 What can I say? You're wrong, probably because you're an ignorant school dropout who'd rather suck their priest's dick than actually bother learning anything.
@fingleur1 think about this, string theory says there are seven more dimensions of reality outside of our experience. Dark matter and energy make up 95% of our universe, yet we cannot interact with that either. The photon behaves differently under observation than it does when no one is looking. How can a tiny particle of light be 'aware'? There are a million times more unanswered questions that answered. Go ahead and think outside the box, it's your mind.
@servant714 So what if there unanswered questions? It just gives those with the education and inclination to do so, the ability to research and find answers, like we've been doing for hundreds and thousands of years.
The answers to these questions won't come along if we abandon science and reason and just put the answers down to magic, gods or demons will they?
@fingleur1 It is a fallacy to think Christians dislike science. We simply disagree with a theory that restricts science to a strictly materialistic worldview. Based on what we are learning in physics, the materialistic paradigm cannot apply until we understand dark matter and energy better and can at least interact with them. .
@servant714 So when you're sitting your A-level exam (that's what our students take here at the age of 18) and asked to explain Gyroscopic Precession - at what point in the answer do you insert God?
If you don't understand what Precession is, do you turn to God for understanding or do you accept the word of man, of science?
@fingleur1 :-) That's a bit random don't you think? Precession isn't the only anamoly by a long shot. Why do we grow old? Why are we heterosexual and not a-sexual, how does the brain transfer thought into physical action, since the thought itself is not action. I don't scream God every time I face the unknown, that is a stereotype that has been forced on creationists, just like us being anti science. We're really not what you think.
@servant714 So presumably if you had cancer then, you'd accept the treatment devised by scientists from scientific consensus about your condition?
Or would you shun that treatment on the basis that it's just 'pseudoscience'? After all, it's the same knowledge and expertise that confirms the theory of evolution.
@servant714 If you had a child screaming in pain and dying from bacterial meningitis. You'd not reject the antibiotics developed and understood by scientists using the theory of evolution. Of course you wouldn't.
When it comes to the wire, you're as much of an atheist as I am. Every time you cross a bridge, or board a plane you abandon your faith completely and place your life in the hands of science.
No Christians don't dislike science, they just ignore science when it contradicts their silly little book. The theory of Evolution being correct doesn't disprove the existence of god but destroys Christianity. Evolution is correct, therefore Adam & Eve never existed. If they never existed then no original sin, no original sin then no need for Jesus to die for our sins. No need for Jesus then no need for Christianity. You only reject Evolution to cling to your dogma and it's sad.
Basically the arguemnst is: I don't understand biology, therefore biology does not make sense to me, therefore biology does not make sense, since evolution is part of biology, therefore evolution does not make sense therefore it must be wrong.
This has nothing to do with defying evolution, at all. If anything, its evidence for adaptive evolution, leave it to ignorant Christians to twist sound science to try to reinfornce religious myths. "This is complex, therefore god created it," is NOT a sound line of reasoning, just because humans don't understand every detail of everything in the natural world does not mean it was created by a diety.
@MrRockhachache Whichever species evolved into what we call chickens would have layed eggs so obviously the egg, we do commonly referr to it as a "theory", do you know what the scientific use of "theory" is? It is a body of evidence supporting a fact/idea.
Its rediculous of you to postulate that godhaters are the ones who cannot back themselves or do not want to have a logical conversation, the opposite is more true
@lavaxtris1 I have a question for you, if only Evolution within kinds is possible but nothing else is what are the barriers? Do you think something stops them from Gradually changing if it means that it would be a new species from point A to point B? And if so, how?
"How and where did that tongue come from?" Simple: nowhere, because it doesn't exist. Woodpecker tongues emerge from the floor of their mouths just like other birds' tongues. The end that wraps around and enters the nostril in some woodpeckers is the back of the tongue (and it ends inside the bill - it doesn't come out into the mouth).
zeledonia1 2 weeks ago
I don't understand how woodpeckers evolved but I have seen one. In fact I have seen quite a lot.
I don't understand how god evolved either. I have not seen a god, nor do I know anyone who has seen a god, nor have I ever read or heard of anyone ever seeing a god.
Therefore whereas I believe in woodpeckers but I don't believe in gods.
alanheath 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@alanheath Yeah but if a tongue that loops around the head is to have evolved to that point, somewhere down the line that tongue would have been unusable and the bird would have starved to death. It could not have evolved behind the head looping around without making the bird unable to eat. Plus, if you want to see Jesus, let me know, I will show you what you can do to literally have Him revealed to you within a few weeks max. No church, one on one.
onewaytoprovegod 14 hours ago
@alanheath
To see God requires the absence of spiritual blindness. Just as it requires the absence of material blindness to see light.
lxnvcts 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WOW!
Unbelievable that in this day and age where we have accumulated a mountain of evidence for evolution ranging from fossils, DNA, RNA, chromosome nr.2, vestiges, observed speciation, phylogeny, comparative anatomy, biogeography, endogenous retroviruses, cytochrome c, atavisms, homologous structures, endemism, ring species, pesticide resistance etc. etc. etc.
One must be either stupid or insane to reject evolution, which one are you?
baldurus1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NIGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER WHITE POWER NIGGER GNIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
UberLifeTroll 1 month ago
This guy doesnt really know what evolution is all about i guess
MrMojoRisin9383 1 month ago
This guy is ignorant. Even if how and what the woodpecker evolved from is unknown, it doesn't prove in any way that god exists. It simply means that we don't understand it yet. Dumbass.
cjspargo812 1 month ago 3
@cjspargo812 So youre ignorant? Because even though I dont know how or when or why God came into existance, doesn't prove in any way that evolution is right. It simply means that we dont understand it yet.
atgblue1 2 weeks ago
@atgblue1 Ok, I'm going to start off and say that what your saying makes no sense and gives the impression that your quite uneducated (not saying that you are or are not, just what it sounds like). Second, the belief that god does or doesn't exists has little to do with evolution being right or not. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. With this said, there is no evidence real evidence that god exists.
cjspargo812 2 weeks ago
@cjspargo812 I spoke not to flaunt intelligence or to enter a debate on unproven theories, (yes I agree, I cannot prove God exists, likewise no one can prove the big bang theory or such, each point only goes back so far before being stuck with speculation). I just answered in a mirrored way what you said. if we cant explain evolution, that just means we dont understand yet, then I cant explain God, it just means I cant prove it yet. anyways. didn't mean to give an analogy beyond your grasp.
atgblue1 2 weeks ago
@atgblue1 While you do bring up a good point with us "not understanding evolution", it is not entirely accurate. While we don't fully understand evolution, we do understand many factors of it. With god, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence. The point I'm trying to make is that with evolution, there is factual data that can be studied and researched, while as of now, no one has presented any legitimate evidence that suggests the existence of a omnipotent, all powerful being.
cjspargo812 2 weeks ago
@cjspargo812 maybe it means that you should put your money where your mouth is. if it came from evolution you should have proof if u dont accept my proof until you have your proof to disprove it. im saying it came from god you say it evolved, my evidence is the bible told me so, your evidence is " ihavent found the answer yet?" please get a real answer before you bash me on empty promises.
gninja92 14 hours ago
@gninja92 There is plenty of proof of the evolution of the Woodpecker. We have fossil evidence of woodpecker evolution going back 40 million years and it fits into the nested hierarchy of other species from which it evolved. All the available evidence is only explainable by the theory of evolution.
fingleur1 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cjspargo812 Yeah but if a tongue that loops around the head is to have evolved to that point, somewhere down the line that tongue would have been unusable and the bird would have starved to death. It could not have evolved behind the head looping around without making the bird unable to eat. Plus, if you want to see Jesus, let me know, I will show you what you can do to literally have Him revealed to you within a few weeks max. No church, one on one.
onewaytoprovegod 14 hours ago
@cjspargo812
You are confusing things. What the man shows is not that "it is unknown how and what the woodpecker evolved from" but that the woodpecker impossibly can have "evolved from" anything at all. You don't even understand what he is talking about.
In fact, you are the ignorant one, "dumbass".
lxnvcts 4 hours ago
I'm guessing they don't know what they don't know what natural selection is.
RealMihaiQC 1 month ago
@RealMihaiQC yea cause natural selection creates falmethrowers.
SamuelJCir 1 month ago
@SamuelJCir ?
RealMihaiQC 1 month ago
Anybody yet point out that it is possible that the tounge, tail and feet of the woodpecker could have evolved at the same time as the bird started to climb trees and eat as it doeas... or even evolve before that and the bird figured a good way to use it's "deformaties"?
bsabruzzo 1 month ago
I understand the evolutionary change in humans and accept that we can selectively breed in a manner that changes our appearance . I really enjoyed your comment about species not becoming extinct. You have an excellent grasp on the evolutionary theory that maintains all life on earth has a common ancestor . Until all life is dead no specie could actually be extinct because of the relationships. I love life and have that in common with the other life on Earth!
jamesrking1 1 month ago
@jamesrking1 Interesting comment. Yes - it's the tree of life that matters and not the individual fruits on the ends of the individual branches. Some branches will die and fall off - and others are being created at the same time.
I do agree - enjoy life and the view from the end of our branch, it's quite a sight.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@jamesrking1 Go shoot yourself man.
RealMihaiQC 1 month ago
I enjoy life on earth totally! I hope that you do also! We have this in common perhaps.
jamesrking1 1 month ago
One small improvement in each generation allows the bird tongue to gradually extend around the back of the woodpeckers head so that it can be the longest bird tongue necessary. Shorter tongued woodpeckers just became extinct and the ones with tongues wrapped around their heads survived. You can imagine how birds diverged and gradually developed bird tongues around the back of their head. I will imagine more and stop thinking life is too complex to happen by chance. Thank you.
jamesrking1 1 month ago
@jamesrking1 No, species become extinct - it's individuals who die or have reduced fitness.
Looking at old family photos and examining the height of ceilings and doors at my father's house - my family has grown in height slowly over the past 5 or 6 generations.
Can you imagine this or is that too complex a concept?
fingleur1 1 month ago
I fucking hate creationists. They are the most ignorant fucks i've ever heard of.
BennyTheDirector 1 month ago
@BennyTheDirector Jesus loves you man!
john5743 1 month ago
All bird's tongues wrap around their heads in this way! The next time you lay your hands on a dead bird make an incision right around the top of its head and you will see - when you pull the head apart, the hyoid apparatus curves around the back of the bird's head past its ears.
The Woodpecker and Flicker are just more extreme variations of this and the tips of the hyoid horns can go all the way around in an adult bird.
No magic - just evolution folks.
fingleur1 1 month ago
Intelligent design is a concept that goes against the idea of or theory of evolution. The woodpecker's tongue evolving around the back of the woodpeckers head to some of us indicate a functioning tongue that could not evolve one improvement at a time as is necessary for evolutionary theory to work. It will never be possible to make all humanity understand that intelligent design is the only way to explain irreducible complexity found in life on earth.
jamesrking1 1 month ago
@jamesrking1 There has never been a system found in biology which is irreducibly complex. The concept is argued by ID proponents, but it is not valid in a biological sense. The eye, the woodpecker's tongue or anything else can be explained via evolution. The woodpeckers tongue did not always wrap around it's head like that; however, the tongue might now have been directed to that exact path but ended up that way over many generations of small beneficial changes.
jisaid08 1 month ago
@jamesrking1 There isn't one feature of the Woodpecker that is not perfectly explained by the theory of evolution.
The woodpecker's tongue doesn't "evolve around the back of its head". This is just nonsense you've made up - either out of ignorance of avian physiology - or through willful ignorance in the desire to shoe-horn your God into places he doesn't belong.
fingleur1 1 month ago
The green woodpecker he shows at 4:00 is proof of evolution. It is perhaps the most un-intelligent design ever to put the tongue wrapping around the animal's head. What an inefficient pathway. Creationist are pure comedy, I love watching these to laugh. Before I get any stupid comments to this I am a scientist, and I know what I am talking about. Seriously don't try to debate me with zero understanding of science you will fail.
jisaid08 1 month ago
@jisaid08 So you are a scientist and you know what you're talking about, huh? Well, I must confess my mistake, through confusion, because I was thoroughly convinced that you were a complete fucking imbecile arsehole and puss filled cunt. Again, Please accept my apologies.
jbooks888 1 month ago
@jbooks888 Apology not accepted creationist moron.
jisaid08 1 month ago
@jisaid08 Wanker!
jbooks888 1 month ago
@jisaid08 Knob cheese!!
jbooks888 1 month ago
@jbooks888 Also I love how on your profile you claim to be "A man of God" and "You love Jebus with all your heart". Way to be very "Jesus like" by immediately telling me that "I am a fucking imbecile arsehole and puss filled cunt". Way to represent your peaceful kind faith. You of course are an idiot for believing in Christianity or creationism, but you also are not a very good follower of Jesus...as I cannot imagine him saying such a thing to me. You sir fail.
jisaid08 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AtheistToothFairy It may be hard to swallow but keep chewing, you'll get there
workfromhomenow100 1 month ago
Flag for: Select a Reason v Spam > Scams / Fraud
rkyeun 1 month ago
The worst thing is they show this crap to children in schools!
fingleur1 1 month ago
Why is a woodpecker able to peck so much wood? God did it, god loves pecking wood! Why, because God said so. But WHY.......Because... God.
God is not an answer to questions! Saying god did it is just another way to admit you have no idea what the hell is going on, or why things the way they are. People like this make me crazy.
TheSinisterdreams 1 month ago 2
If a scientist tells you they "don't have a clue," he/she is being intellectually honest. One may have an idea (hypothesis), but ultimately the correct stance is simply to say that there is insufficient evidence to credibly provide a mechanism by which a particular trait evolved. The lazy explanation?... God did it! This speaker is embarrassingly ignorant of what evolutionary theory says and, broadly, how science works. @4:58: Accusing Evo. Biologists of fitting evidence to the theory? Shameful.
shaun2135 1 month ago
@shaun2135 Saying God did it is not lazy if its the truth. Evolutionists believe in fairytales. They don't want to obey God so they just make up a story to try and eliminate Him from their wretched sinful lives. They're driven by their own lusts. There are many wonders in nature that cannot possibly be explained by a naturalism. But you fools continue to hold onto your false beliefs because to do otherwise would mean having to submit to God. Dishonesty abounds in the evolution hoax.
jbooks888 1 month ago
Your wrong. Learn more to find out why.
dieinacarfire 2 months ago
Assuming there are specks of truth in this video: If woodpeckers and humans aren't related, how does it help brain surgeons to study woodpeckers' skulls?
keeflookeem 2 months ago
This channel should be called exploitation films.
biggingeryeti 2 months ago 2
Krispy Kreme donuts are awesome. Just saying...
Caleb2292 2 months ago
Isnt Evolution amazing?
Isnt Reverse Engineering over millions of years difficult?
betamale3 2 months ago
Great explanation and great video. Thanks.
ceparuak 2 months ago
For the record, this video is factually incorrect. It shows the path of the woodpecker's tongue completely incorrectly!
The woodpecker's tongue is anatomically not much different to any other bird. This speaker would try and have you believe that the Green Woodpecker's tongue cannot be explained by evolution. This is untrue. It is a lie.
fingleur1 2 months ago 22
@fingleur1 This is a lie. Quick google searches of "bird tongues" and "woodpecker tongue" can disprove your baseless assertion. There are many different bird tongues, each perfectly designed for their function. The bottom line is the woodpecker is "irreducibly complex" and evolution cannot account for it. You're just in denial.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron Please tell me why you think the woodpecker's tongue is "irreducibly complex".
Can you name one feature of it or structure that cannot be found in any other bird?
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 I never claimed the bird's tongue was "irreducibly complex", I stated that the woodpecker contains certain mechanisms that are irreducibly complex. Please watch from 2:15 to the end of the video again. You'll see that the woodpeckers tongue is also reliant on the solvent in the woodpecker's mouth. That's an example of irreducible complexity. You can't have one without the other. The woodpecker screams intelligent design.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron
This video is just a pack of lies! It shows the path of the tongue and gets it so laughably wrong it's unbelievable. I can't find any proof of this 'glue factory' and solvent in any literature anywhere - feel free to look yourself and post a citation.
The video also talks of a 'shock absorbing cartilage' to protect the bird's brain. This is another lie.
Lies come naturally to creationists. The truth takes a little longer to absorb.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Here's an article on woodpeckers, I suggest you read through it: christadelphians.ns.ca/minutes/woodpecker.htm
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron Now we pinpoint your trouble. You believe what you're told if you think it supports your theory of talking snake. It's a start though. Read what that piece says about the woodpecker's tongue. Then Google "Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue" and read the article (and citations) there.
You'll see that this video is telling lies and there is nothing irreducibly complex about the woodpecker. It's all perfectly explained by evolution.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Again, the example of the glue like substance on the woodpecker's tongue and the solvent in it's mouth is an example of irreducible complexity (you can't have one without the other and the article makes no mention of this). The article's rebuttal to the woodpecker's tongue pathway is that other birds share a similar structure...okay, now explain how that pathway arose through small incremental steps. It can't.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron OK, so now we've established that the anchor point of the tongue is just behind the bird's beak, and that it doesn't in any way pass through the bird's nostril! what is irreducibly complex about that? Over time the tongue has grown longer in fine gradual steps as the hyoid apparatus has lengthened.
It's not irreducible. It remains a tongue and it remains useful to the creature from being just a flap of skin all the way to being a woodpecker's tongue.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Why on earth would the woodpecker's tongue begin to grow around it's skull in small incremental steps? That makes no sense unless it's tongue was wrapped around it's skull from the very beginning. I'll PM you an Animal Planet article which shows the beginning of the tongue being anchored at the nostril. It does seem as if the video was in error about the precise pathway of the tongue, but the point still stands.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron If you dissect any bird you'll find that the hyoid bone grows in a curve around the outside of the bird's brain. It simply has to go that way because there's no room for it to do otherwise. The hyoid provides the support for the bird's tongue which travels as a sheath around the hyoid.
It's the tip of the hyoid horns that can protrude all the way through the bird's nostril and fuse there, In a young bird the horns will not have grown so far.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron The bird's tongue grows from a position slightly posterior of the bird's beak. A very early ancestor of the woodpecker would have had teeth and a far shorter 'beak' so all that would be required would be a small triangle of skin like we see in, say a chicken supported between the forks of the hyoid bone - to make sure food does in the right direction.
Almost all birds have barbs on the tongue in varying locations.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@ubermechazillatron You'll find birds' tongues are adapted for their particular careers through evolution.
Your woodpecker misunderstanding comes from an old observation that the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus appears to be 'fused' in the bird's nostril and this was wrongly taken as the anchor point of the tongue. Evolution could not explain the tongue's anchor point jumping in this way from one place to another.
The myth persists because Creationists love to repeat lies.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1...And we should believe you why? Can you prove that this video is incorrect? do you have any sources that we can check out to prove your point?
shakerkhoury8 1 month ago
@shakerkhoury8 Absolutely you shouldn't believe me! Never believe what any person tells you - especially if they tell you things you want to hear!
A good explanation can be found on the talkorigins site - Google "Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue". But the author wouldn't want you to take his word for it so check out his citations too!
Make it your job to find out the truth, and how to find the truth.
fingleur1 1 month ago
@fingleur1 Actually, evolution can't explain most of nature. It is so far fetched that only a fool would buy into this ridiculous unproven theory.
jbooks888 1 month ago
@jbooks888 Evolution is proven. A theory in science must be proven to be considered a theory. The genetic evidence alone is evidence enough to prove evolution, but we also have a wealth of fossils. Evolution is reality. However, if you prefer to believe bronze age mythology and credit the desert god of bronze age Palestine that is your choice. Why do you think a bunch of scientific illiterates from the bronze age know more than modern scientist?
jisaid08 1 month ago
@fingleur1 And what about the rest of the video? Any wisdom to spout about that?
jbooks888 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jbooks888
"It is so far fetched that only a fool would buy into this ridiculous unproven theory" - you're obviously a complete twat.
Go to school, learn something and try again.
fingleur1 1 month ago
Reality defies the myth of evolution.
don142128 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@don142128 "Reality defies the myth of evolution."
So why is it evolution that is based on observations and laboratory experiments, and Creationism that is based on, oh, a creation myth?
fingleur1 2 months ago
I had to watch this whole movie in my class, I wanted to get up and throw the fucking TV out the window.
NewSimpleadams 3 months ago
@NewSimpleadams They made you watch THAT in a school?
FFS I'd have been up throwing the teacher out of the window if I thought one of my children was being force-fed such crap.
fingleur1 3 months ago
@fingleur1 Yeah they did, and made us write down notes on what this guy was trying to say for like 8 different animals. But to be fair, the teacher said we are going to watch a movie next week about what atheists have to say about this
NewSimpleadams 3 months ago
@NewSimpleadams It's not really fair on you because what science has to say isn't countered by what religion has to say. They should be covered in completely different lessons. If there are scientific questions to be answered, then leave that to science to sort out.
Can you imagine them allowing a scientist to comment in a religious education class to point out that 'virgin birth' probably just means Mary had been shagging the local shepherd and didn't tell Joseph?
fingleur1 3 months ago
@fingleur1 Oh yeah, judging from your posts, then one can tell, your children must be total retards that cant think for themselves of weigh the evidence and decided. They have dear old retard youtube daddy to tell them what to think wear and learn right?
fucking americans!
karamarouge 2 months ago
"Have you ever seen a blind woodpecker?"
Homeboy hasn't seen my basement...
isingatlantic 3 months ago
This is actually evidence FOR evolution! Not that we need anymore because it's been proved with modern genetics but whatever.
spyrolad 3 months ago
God made everything and He loves it all. Your comments just show that if God spoke directly to you and cured a blind man right in front of your eyes you would still be antagonistic towards Him. No matter the overwhelming proof you can find these days you are still stubborn. If you really cared as much as you pretend to you would find the truth. The mortality rate these days hovers around 100% so, it's time to consider where you're going next.
WesNitty 3 months ago
@WesNitty If the Lord Shiva spoke directly to you and cured a blind man right in front of your eyes ... would you become a Hindu?
fingleur1 3 months ago
Now wait a minute... Did he really said that giraffes are too unperfect to be an evolutionary developed animals and the woodpeckers are too perfect to be one??? Coz that sounds very stupid that way.
xxlCortez 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if it wasn't for google i wouldn't be able to tell the truth and would now believe in a lot of BULLCRAP like this...thank god for google lol
plwpahi 3 months ago
Comment removed
plwpahi 3 months ago
So woodpeckers aren't related to hawks, robins, chickens, and geese?
odinata 3 months ago
god's design....
30yehgerrman 4 months ago
This is one of the most controversial subjects ever~
pistonpkm 4 months ago
@pistonpkm Not really. Once you take fundamentalist evangelical christians out of the picture, there is actually not any real controversy left.
garouHH 1 month ago
Exactly on what part evolution is defied?
papageno02 4 months ago
Yep, and eventually Woodpeckers die from head trauma or starvation. God is so awesome.
saimsuguy 4 months ago
so... the woodpecker has adapted perfectly to its environment.
would you say, that if there were any weaker ones, they would die off?
would you say, that nature selects those who are the strongest?
-see what i did there?
OmfgItsHenu 4 months ago 10
@OmfgItsHenu
The woodpecker has not adapted it was designed like that from the beginning. thats waht this video says.
PofTheMagickVincent 3 months ago
@PofTheMagickVincent This video provides no proof that the woodpecker is anything other than an excellent example of evolution.
Evolution is fact and a very badly put together talk about the woodpecker's (frankly not that special) features won't change that.
fingleur1 3 months ago
@fingleur1
relly explain that to? me becaus i dont se any evolution in the woodpecker only a very nice designe
PofTheMagickVincent 3 months ago in playlist Amazing creatures that defy evolution
@PofTheMagickVincent When you've studied all the features of the 400 species in the biological order Piciforms - and learned about DNA - come back and ask the same question again. You have this one chance to use your life on earth to improve your knowledge of the world around you. Use it. It's what Jesus would do.
fingleur1 3 months ago
@fingleur1 It seems that we are all confused about the great evolution of the woodpecker. Please enlighten us. Tell us how the tongue evolved. With the barbs, the glue, the solvent, Tell us how the hard beak evolved with the shock absorber and the thick cranium. Please enlighten the whole world and tell us how all this stuff evolved one bit at a time over a million years and in what specific order. (i will even be generous and let you totally make up a scenario that makes logical sens
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge No space here to give you a full thesis on the evolution of the woodpecker as you well know.
If you had a basic understanding of the theory of evolution you could answer your own questions - so I think that may be the place to start. I will try and answer specific questions privately if you wish to send one or two over by PM
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 You could simply sum up the facts. For example tell me what evolved first, the beak, the skull, the tongue, the barb on the tongue etc. Very simple put them in order of how they evolved (if they all evolve simultaneously then say so)
You can give us a a lot of info this way. Or better yet, you could simply direct us to the peer reviewed paper that directly addresses the evolution of these amazing features of the woodpecker.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge While you're at it - can you find the literature that covers the description of this "glue and solvent" of which you speak and send me that as well please. This isn't a subject I've read on at all.
I'm sure you haven't just taken a creationist video on its word! Boy that would be monumental stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if it was another lie like the path of the tongue in this video.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Hm if this "solvent" is what is holding up this lesson on evolution, I will gladly release you from the burden of explaining how it came about.
I hope you are not going to come up with some excuse about being too busy or that you have some evidence some where but cant post right now. I would really love to learn what I cant find in any scientific journal, paper, book or anything chronicling this amazing evolution...
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge There are no 'amazing' features of the woodpecker. The feet, beak and tongue are a design shared by hundreds of species of birds, the toucans, flickers, piculets, wrynecks etc.
All of these species share a common ancestor which also had all these features. The whole family has diverged since creating species with different specialties.
Your questions just demonstrate your lack of understanding of the theory (and fact) of evolution.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@karamarouge Evolution is not linear and evolution is not teleological. Do you understand? It doesn't seem so. If you just play with a piece of paper and draw yourself a dendritic cladogram to describe the known extant and extinct members of Zygodactylidae you'll find you might get a better picture of how evolution works.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1
but that is not what you were asked. You who insists he knows how these features evolved should provide the answer to the simple question asked. No one asked you for lineage. It wont be found in a drawing of a dendritic cladogram.
Answer the simple question asked. Its beginning to look more and more like you are just obfuscating and that you are completely ignorant of this science you falsely claim to be so well versed in. Prove me wrong. Answer the question asked.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge I explained to you that evolution is not linear! Do you not understand that a question of 'what evolved first' is a question that cannot be answered to give you any meaningful help.
Google ensatina salamanders and more generally ring species to learn that variation occurs in the spacial as well as the temporal domain. Then learn about modular evolution and mosaic speciation and you might start to get a handle on what's going on around you.
fingleur1 2 months ago
"'what evolved first' is a question that cannot be answered "
lol. Every one knows you cant answer the question. We all know you are making up bullshit. You dont have the answers, you believe in a bogus theory not based on scientific fact or evidence, but based on faith alone. Then you make fun of people who choose to put their faith in a creator.
lol
Did I ask you about salamanders? No i didnt. Answer the fucking question you were asked!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge
What evolved first, the beak or the tongue? As long as it's been what you'd classify as a bird it's had a beak and a tongue.
If you can't understand the 'chicken and egg' question, which most children manage by the age of 10, then there's not much hope for you and I think you should stick to picture bible story books for your answers.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Who in the hell asked you to answer if the beak or tongue evolved first?
you are obfuscating, twisting and turning, trying to change my question into one I clearly did not ask you. I asked you a very simple question. Explain the evolution of the woodpecker's skill, shockabsorber, beak, tongue, with the sticky mucous and barb.
No one here cares about order. No one said anything came first. We just want to know who the whole thing evolved. Stop debauching my question!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge These features came about through mutation, natural selection and heritability AKA the theory of evolution.
The population contains natural variation caused by mutations. Certain phenotypes have greater fitness and are therefore the genes and haplotypes that code for these phenotypes increase in frequency in the population over time - RESULTING IN THE FEATURES WE'RE DISCUSSING!
It's called evolution - it's a fact, it's happening all around you.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 You are not answering the specific question you have been asked focused on the so called evolution of the woodpecker as featured in this video. We want facts details etc. What kind of mutation led to the development of this tongue, what exactly was selected for in this process of natural selection.
We want answers. Specific answers to the subject in the video not generalized theories that have never been observed, experimented upon or that are not even falsifiable.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge What does the literature say about mutations in the gene BMP4? What changes do they make to birds' beak shape, size and strength?
fingleur1 2 months ago
@karamarouge Here's a good article you might care to read:
"Morphoregulation of Avian Beaks: Comparative Mapping of Growth Zone Activities and Morphological Evolution" from the Journal Developmental Dynamics.
When you've studied that and read all articles referenced at the bottom you'll be able to explain just one tiny part of the evolution of the woodpecker.
Chop Chop
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Once again. I did not ask you about anything to do with the morphoregulation of Avian beaks. My question was very clear concise and specific.
It that info is indeed in that book, specifically about the evolution of the woodpeckers, beak, its tongue, its shock absorber, the sticky mucous, the bard on the tongue then why dont you simply read those volumes and tell us exactly happened. Because I read them all and there is not a word on this specific subject.
Stop lying!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge You wanted to know the science that backs up the theory of evolution. I gave you a very small specific example that explains to you the processes that are in play - from which mutations in what genes all the way to the varying expression of which proteins and how that regulates the evolution of shape and size of a bird's beak.
I can't help if it's all gone over your head.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 Um nope..nice try..But you fail again. I do not want to know the science that backs up anything. RATHER WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW THE WOODPECKERS, BEAK, TONGUE WITH BARD AND STICKY MUCOUS, SHOCK ABSORBER AND SKULL EVOLVED!
A very clear concise question that i will not let you obfuscate and squirm away from with bogus answers about morphing bird beaks and silly games like this.
ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED OR CONFESS YOU HAVE NO CLUE!
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Ok, so I gave you the overall explanation - which is the theory of evolution, and you don't want that. I gave you a detailed scientific explanation, but you don't want that!
Every bird that pecks will have some sort of shock absorbing brain protection. Do you want a general explanation as to why this is, or do you want a scientific explanation?
Or are you going to admit that you don't actually want either?
fingleur1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge You did say (24 hours is a long time I know):
"We want facts details etc. What kind of mutation led to the development of this tongue, what exactly was selected for in this process of natural selection.
We want answers. Specific answers"
Hmm but now you say ... "I do not want to know the science that backs up anything".
Way to contradict yourself.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@karamarouge Reading the Journal of Zooology and "Woodpecker pecking: how woodpeckers avoid brain injury" I see no mention of a shock-absorbing cartilage.
Where did you lap this lie up then? Would you like to support your claim? I'll take a general explanation or a detailed one ;)
fingleur1 2 months ago
@karamarouge Errr, have you ever heard of a guy called Charles Darwin? He travelled to the Galapagos Islands and noticed that the finches on each island had adapted their beaks to feed on the different food sources available in each locale. It's the most fundamental and basic part of the Origin of Species. If you cannot understand that easy stuff, maybe you should go back to kindergarten and start over.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@CalumGilhooly OMG...I am betting that this is another dumb american evolutionist who is completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin was completely wrong about the finches!
But I dont have time to get into that. All I will ask you, hey bozo, how are the finch beaks related to the woodpecker? Does the finch have a tongue like the woodpecker? or skull?
Who in the fuck asked you about finches. I clearly asked about the woodpecker.
Fuck off if you cant read simple English
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge Oh my science! I'm betting that this is another incredibly idiotic Chwistian from anywhere in the world, (they always form the dimmest members of any society). If you had bothered to take your God Goggles of a moment to check my channel, you would have seen that I am a Scot. In what way was Darwin wrong about the finches? Please explain your assertion. They are related to the woodpecker, because they show that birds adapt to their environment quickly and effectively, Dumb theist.
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@CalumGilhooly lol..I dont have time to teach some one so pathetic he claims to have a youtube channel yet he cant google simple facts and find out the truth about the bogus science he was taught as a school in idiot.
Hey moron the supposed changes he noticed were only in size. Turns out he was wrong because the sizes actually oscillate depending on weather dumbass!
It still has nothing to do with the woodpecker's beak, tongue, skull etc.
NOw plz fuck off with your ignorance.
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge bogus science? What, evolution? Hahahahaha, you are as stupid as they come. Evolution is proven science and only morons blinded by their God Goggles are still in denial about it. Many theists, including bishops believe in evolution. Their beak size changes with the weather? WTF? So the adaptations that developed to allow them to feed off different plants and insects and even different parts of the same plant are due to rain and temp? Hahahahaha. What a cretin!
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@CalumGilhooly Like i said I dont have time to teach some internet retard the very science he falsely claims to be educated in. You dont want to pick up a biology book then it is your right to remain stupid. Just dont expect me to go out of my way to relieve you of that stupidity.
If evolution has been proven then you would not have a problem answering my simple question about how the woodpecker evolved. Either answer it or do me a favor, please fuck off !
karamarouge 2 months ago
@karamarouge You couldn't even teach your granny to suck eggs you under evolved chimp. Tell me why you imagine the adaptations of SOME woodpeckers make it a prime example for creation theory? There are many woodpeckers with few of the adaptations you love to cite. The sap sucker has a short tongue, the flicker has a long tongue but no adaptations to allow hammering on a tree trunk as it feeds on the ground or by chipping at rotten bark/wood much as other non woodpecker species do, EPIC FAIL! lol
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karamarouge You couldn't even teach your granny to suck eggs you under evolved chimp. Tell me why you imagine the adaptations of SOME woodpeckers make it a prime example for creation theory? There are many woodpeckers with few of the adaptations you love to cite. The sap sucker has a short tongue, the flicker has a long tongue but no adaptations to allow hammering on a tree trunk as it feeds on the ground or by chipping at rotten bark/wood much as other non woodpecker species do, EPIC FAIL! lol
CalumGilhooly 2 months ago
@PofTheMagickVincent so you think the woodpecker has been here, unchanged, for 3,6 billion years?
even though reproduction changes the dna with every generation?
even though there are no evidence for it? no fossils of woodpeckers old enough?
well, we cant all be rational. that would just be boring.
OmfgItsHenu 3 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu
no i don think that. i belive in a six day cration foor about 6000 years ago and that the fossil rekord was created during the flood.
PofTheMagickVincent 3 months ago in playlist Amazing creatures that defy evolution
@PofTheMagickVincent oh brilliant.
you are like the perfect dumb stereotypical creationist.
well, i think studying might help.
you most likely arent here to seek information, just to strengthen you naive beliefs by trolling.
OmfgItsHenu 3 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu natural selection selects it does not create a damn thing.
SamuelJCir 2 months ago
@SamuelJCir well of course not. never did i claim such a thing nor would it have been relevant to my argument.
OmfgItsHenu 2 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu you were trying to prove evolution through natural selection which is impossible.
Evolution relies on unsupported mutations that have never been witnessed or ever will. the mutation increasing the complexity of the DNA or the length. while observed mutations like deformities are negative 9999/10000.
SamuelJCir 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SamuelJCir "Evolution relies on unsupported mutations that have never been witnessed"
yes. never has any1, anywhere witnessed anything having mutations. that is why all children look like their parents. duh?
"mutations like deformities are negative 9999/10000"
not sure where you got your numbers, but beneficial mutations are like 5%. most are neutral, and another minority is the negative ones.
OmfgItsHenu 2 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu just about every mutation is an error in the DNA, a removal of part of the DNA, or gene scrambling in DNA which does not improve genetic complexity btw. and if you actually had a positive mutation i would almost 100% guarantee that the enzymes would still fix it back to normal and it would be lost forever. So many factors against evolution, by the time you got enough beneficial mutations to grow an extra hair the species would have died out 5 times over.
SamuelJCir 2 months ago
@SamuelJCir So close ... but harmful mutations kill individuals and not populations! There is a mechanism for removing harmful mutations from the gene pool - it's called premature death. There is no mechanism for removing beneficial mutations from a population's gene pool.
(well, actually there is - it's called speciation but you probably don't want to think about that one.)
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 harmful mutations either cause the individual to become infertile, kill them, or give them deformed genetics. Either way most abnormalities are not passed on in the genetics, and the ones that are are always harmfull. enzymes destroy most of them there hasnt been 1 good mutation that i can or anyone else can think of.
SamuelJCir 2 months ago
@SamuelJCir "there hasnt been 1 good mutation that i can or anyone else can think of"
Try studying the subject, then you may be able to think of lots.
Here's a nice one for you. Most mammals are colourblind. You (presuming you're not one of the 1:5 males who are still colourblind) have benefited from a mutation that gives you colour vision.
Praise be to the Lord for mutations.
fingleur1 2 months ago
@fingleur1 speciation lmao. no such thing, only variation within a kind. derp.
SamuelJCir 2 months ago
@OmfgItsHenu You missed the point of the video. The point is the woodpecker is "irreducibly complex". Certain components of the woodpecker rely on the existence of other parts. Evolution works in small incremental steps. Evolution is linear and possesses no foresight. Therefore, it is inefficient when accounting for "irreducibly complex" organisms.
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
Thank you creationists for continuing to make it harder and harder for people to come to God by making it and issue of Faith vs Science. Lol you people will one day answer for this you can bet on that. You may not exactly loose your salvation but you will be called out on it.
RomanHistoryNut 4 months ago
@RomanHistoryNut When every single Bishop and Cardinal and Chief Rabbi and Pontificator on the planet would agree with you, you do have to wonder why these guys don't just tell their flock to grow up and get into the 21st century.
Hmm. is it something to do with the fact that stupid people hand over more money and ask fewer questions about what you're doing with it? And people given education might realise that other religions have just as much validity as their own?
fingleur1 4 months ago
convincing the atheist isn't a matter of logical discussion, only the power of God can wake them. When evolution is unsustainable they will run to a new theory that denies God. Dawkins himself was willing to admit their may have been aliens behind it all. It's the 'anything but God' mentallity that tells the true nature of this debate, it isn't logical, it's spiritual.
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 The theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are millions of theists worldwide who also manage to go to school, become educated, and realise that arguing against the theory of evolution is as stupid as claiming that earthquakes are caused by God stamping his feet or dementia is caused by demons.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1 evolution and atheism are almost synonymous, arguing against evolution is stupid? Explain two things to me.
How does the universe come from nothing?
How does information get added to genome?
Forget it, you[ll have some pseudo scientific reasoning, but I already know that neither question can be factually answered, so anyone who insists evolution is anything more than a philosophy is by proxy a liar with alterior motives. T
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 I've no idea how the universe came about for certain. And neither do you.
But we do know that new DNA comes about through mutation, gene duplication and insertion by viruses. Aneuploidy and ployploidy and gene duplication are hardly pseudoscience.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1 you see what I mean, your trying to say that information is added through mutation, that is the pseudoscience I was talking about. Mutation is never beneficial and never adds new information. There is no amount of logic that can move you from your worldview. If you don't feel something inside that draws you to God then you aren't called, you are rejected by God and there is nothing I can say or do to change that. It is your soul I argue for, why do you argue?
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 What can I say? You're wrong, probably because you're an ignorant school dropout who'd rather suck their priest's dick than actually bother learning anything.
So sad.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1 think about this, string theory says there are seven more dimensions of reality outside of our experience. Dark matter and energy make up 95% of our universe, yet we cannot interact with that either. The photon behaves differently under observation than it does when no one is looking. How can a tiny particle of light be 'aware'? There are a million times more unanswered questions that answered. Go ahead and think outside the box, it's your mind.
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 So what if there unanswered questions? It just gives those with the education and inclination to do so, the ability to research and find answers, like we've been doing for hundreds and thousands of years.
The answers to these questions won't come along if we abandon science and reason and just put the answers down to magic, gods or demons will they?
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1 It is a fallacy to think Christians dislike science. We simply disagree with a theory that restricts science to a strictly materialistic worldview. Based on what we are learning in physics, the materialistic paradigm cannot apply until we understand dark matter and energy better and can at least interact with them. .
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 So when you're sitting your A-level exam (that's what our students take here at the age of 18) and asked to explain Gyroscopic Precession - at what point in the answer do you insert God?
If you don't understand what Precession is, do you turn to God for understanding or do you accept the word of man, of science?
fingleur1 4 months ago
@fingleur1 :-) That's a bit random don't you think? Precession isn't the only anamoly by a long shot. Why do we grow old? Why are we heterosexual and not a-sexual, how does the brain transfer thought into physical action, since the thought itself is not action. I don't scream God every time I face the unknown, that is a stereotype that has been forced on creationists, just like us being anti science. We're really not what you think.
servant714 4 months ago
@servant714 So presumably if you had cancer then, you'd accept the treatment devised by scientists from scientific consensus about your condition?
Or would you shun that treatment on the basis that it's just 'pseudoscience'? After all, it's the same knowledge and expertise that confirms the theory of evolution.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@servant714 If you had a child screaming in pain and dying from bacterial meningitis. You'd not reject the antibiotics developed and understood by scientists using the theory of evolution. Of course you wouldn't.
When it comes to the wire, you're as much of an atheist as I am. Every time you cross a bridge, or board a plane you abandon your faith completely and place your life in the hands of science.
fingleur1 4 months ago
@servant714
No Christians don't dislike science, they just ignore science when it contradicts their silly little book. The theory of Evolution being correct doesn't disprove the existence of god but destroys Christianity. Evolution is correct, therefore Adam & Eve never existed. If they never existed then no original sin, no original sin then no need for Jesus to die for our sins. No need for Jesus then no need for Christianity. You only reject Evolution to cling to your dogma and it's sad.
UnknownUserName4267 4 months ago
Basically the arguemnst is: I don't understand biology, therefore biology does not make sense to me, therefore biology does not make sense, since evolution is part of biology, therefore evolution does not make sense therefore it must be wrong.
michalchik 4 months ago
argumentum ad ignorantiam and incredulity at its finest
finderfinder100 4 months ago
"god made him" quite an assumption there...
dattebenforcer 4 months ago 2
This has nothing to do with defying evolution, at all. If anything, its evidence for adaptive evolution, leave it to ignorant Christians to twist sound science to try to reinfornce religious myths. "This is complex, therefore god created it," is NOT a sound line of reasoning, just because humans don't understand every detail of everything in the natural world does not mean it was created by a diety.
skitzo429 4 months ago
One word: Bullshit.
Mulletsrokkify 4 months ago
lol woodpecker...
ishigum 4 months ago
@MrRockhachache Whichever species evolved into what we call chickens would have layed eggs so obviously the egg, we do commonly referr to it as a "theory", do you know what the scientific use of "theory" is? It is a body of evidence supporting a fact/idea.
Its rediculous of you to postulate that godhaters are the ones who cannot back themselves or do not want to have a logical conversation, the opposite is more true
mehico33 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lavaxtris1 I have a question for you, if only Evolution within kinds is possible but nothing else is what are the barriers? Do you think something stops them from Gradually changing if it means that it would be a new species from point A to point B? And if so, how?
pat5168 5 months ago