Woodpeckers

[Maggsy]

If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

[jillery]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[John Harshman]

On 10/31/17 9:35 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>
>
> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?

You're probably too young to remember the Karlpecker. Ask a veteran.

[ed wolf]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 4:55:03 PM UTC+1, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

Banging your head against easily researchable
questions will give you a calloused brain.
That is an acquired property and any kids you
might have will not inherit it.
The textbook explanation for the woodpeckers
bill goes like this:
Some ancestor developed a technique of searching
insects in little cracks in the bark, like many birds today.
Birds are hatched with variations in the size of their bills.
Birds with bigger and stronger bills find more food and
hatch more young. Mutations in both behavior and body
gradually lead to the woodpeckers we see today, toes,
tongue, tail and all.
And the almighty creator gave them an immunity to
headache out of his great kindness.
Ed

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:55:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

Woodpecker is intelligent bird and does not bang its head
against a tree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191699/The-boy-11-taught-stricken-bird-pecker-chick-fell-nest.html

[Bill]

Hey, no fair!

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

Karl? Is that you?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:47:37 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Yep. In some ways I miss him, just as I miss Ted Holden,
Earl Curley and a few others.

All the "real" kooks are disappearing.

[Sean Dillon]

Oh, Karl. I do wonder what became of him. He was the "Ray" of Beliefnet's OOL forum until that went dark in 2013 (he posted its very final post, in fact, and went out being just as unpleasant as ever). Haven't seen any sign of him since.

[northe...@outlook.com]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds could get more food.

Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill, but not as well.

Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with their beaks.

Woodpeckers are more intelligent than you are. It is entirely possible that ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest, creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.

[ed wolf]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 4:15:03 PM UTC+1, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>

-snip

It is entirely possible that ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest, creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.

Are you trying to provoke Maggsy into a battle of
wits with a tiger? Well I bet on the smile on the face
of the tiger.
But of course the best cats are hyenae.
Social, transgender, nocturnal, always good for a laugh,
a cat that has Rhodesian Ridgeback for breakfast.
Cheers
Ed

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:52:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

"OOL"...

Out Of Lunacy?

[RonO]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!activity/talk.origins/UtbHDKAZIncJ

This link might take you to one of KSJJ's accounts. He also posted as
karl and likely other accounts. This one only goes back to 1996 if you
toggle back in time.

Ron Okimoto

[northe...@outlook.com]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 12:25:02 PM UTC-4, ed wolf wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 4:15:03 PM UTC+1, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> > > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
> >
> -snip
> It is entirely possible that ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest, creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.
>
> Are you trying to provoke Maggsy into a battle of
> wits with a tiger?

I would not pick a fight with someone who is completely unarmed.

[John Stockwell]

Ksjj -- Karl Krawford, aka Klueless Karl. He was a great foil.

My favorite exchange with him was this post.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/ksjj$20Galileo$27s$20two$20new$20sciences%7Csort:date/talk.origins/VNrKZ11MgqI/CHhr8bSZ0jIJ

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:49:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-6, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/31/17 9:35 AM, jillery wrote:
>> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> > <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>> >
>> >
>> > What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> > against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>>
>> You're probably too young to remember the Karlpecker. Ask a veteran.
>
>Ksjj -- Karl Krawford, aka Klueless Karl. He was a great foil.

Yep. As I said, I miss him, bless his tiny little mind.

>My favorite exchange with him was this post.
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/talk.origins/ksjj$20Galileo$27s$20two$20new$20sciences%7Csort:date/talk.origins/VNrKZ11MgqI/CHhr8bSZ0jIJ

Oy...

Karl to a "T".

[Maggsy]

My problem is that it doesn't make any sense. for one thing the insects its trying to eat will feel the vibration and get away. or they should have done right if evolution is correct. they should have evolved to survive. Plus my point is why did the first bird do this,because at first the bill would have just been like any other bill ,but only getting harder over time. so the first bird to do this would have had no advantage to do it.

[Maggsy]

That article says nothing about Woodpeckers not banging their head against trees.

[Maggsy]

if their bill is bigger they would not be able to fit into the small crevasses where the insects are hiding. if its about hatching more young then why isn't it that all species have large sets of offspring? your answers just lead to more questions.

[Maggsy]

On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>
> Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds could get more food.
>

where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or deep as modern birds?

> Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill, but not as well.
>
> Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with their beaks.
>

and the beak is attached to the head,its going to effect the head and brain,thats the point.

> Woodpeckers are more intelligent than you are. It is entirely possible that ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest, creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.

Goodbye,i don't feed trolls or cast pearls before swine.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/4/17 6:39 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>
>>
>> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>

> My problem is that it doesn't make any sense. for one thing the insects its trying to eat will feel the vibration and get away. or they should have done right if evolution is correct. they should have evolved to survive. Plus my point is why did the first bird do this,because at first the bill would have just been like any other bill ,but only getting harder over time. so the first bird to do this would have had no advantage to do it.

Your problem arises, in large part, because you don't spend much time
watching birds or insects.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:44:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

No, the article says that woodpeckers are intelligent birds.

Anyone who has ever observed woodpeckers knows that they
don't bang their heads on anything.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>
>>
>> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>>
>> --
>> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>>
>> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>My problem is that it doesn't make any sense.

....to you. Which is no one's problem but yours.

< snip handwaving>

HAND.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:42:24 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:00:03 UTC, ed wolf wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 4:55:03 PM UTC+1, Maggsy wrote:
>> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>
>>
>> Banging your head against easily researchable
>> questions will give you a calloused brain.
>> That is an acquired property and any kids you
>> might have will not inherit it.
>> The textbook explanation for the woodpeckers
>> bill goes like this:
>> Some ancestor developed a technique of searching
>> insects in little cracks in the bark, like many birds today.
>> Birds are hatched with variations in the size of their bills.
>> Birds with bigger and stronger bills find more food and
>> hatch more young. Mutations in both behavior and body
>> gradually lead to the woodpeckers we see today, toes,
>> tongue, tail and all.
>> And the almighty creator gave them an immunity to
>> headache out of his great kindness.
>> Ed
>
>if their bill is bigger they would not be able to fit into the small crevasses where the insects are hiding.

BZZT! The point of bigger, stronger bills is they allow birds to pry
apart small crevasses into larger ones. Also, a lot of larvae hide
under the bark precisely because they can't escape, which means
removing the bark above them is an effective way to find and eat them.

>if its about hatching more young then why isn't it that all species have large sets of offspring?

Once again, there are different strategies for survival. One strategy
is to have lots of offspring. But that necessarily means that each
offspring gets a smaller share of resources from the parents. Another
strategy is to have fewer offspring, but invest more time and energy
into their care.

>your answers just lead to more questions.

All the best questions lead to more questions. That's how it's
supposed to work.

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
>> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>
>> Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds could get more food.
>>
>
>
>where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or deep as modern birds?

We know woodpeckers have been around that long because we have fossils
of them. Their fossils preserve the skull which shows they didn't
have the anatomical adaptations which allow modern woodpeckers to peck
wood so well.

>> Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill, but not as well.
>>
>> Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with their beaks.
>>
>
>
>and the beak is attached to the head,its going to effect the head and brain,thats the point.

<http://www.audubon.org/news/how-woodpecker-bangs-without-brain-damage>

*************************************************
When a woodpecker strikes a tree, the impact energy—energy that is
released during a collision—is converted to strain energy in the body.
Too much strain in the head can be catastrophic, but the woodpecker’s
incredible anatomy—including a specialized beak and skull—redirects
most of the strain into the rest of the body, instead of the head.
*************************************************

[jillery]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy

<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>
>>
>> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>>
>

>My problem is that it doesn't make any sense. for one thing the insects its trying to eat will feel the vibration and get away. or they should have done right if evolution is correct. they should have evolved to survive. Plus my point is why did the first bird do this,because at first the bill would have just been like any other bill ,but only getting harder over time. so the first bird to do this would have had no advantage to do it.

Since you complain that it doesn't make any sense, perhaps you should
acknowledge all the posts which point out that woodpeckers don't
literally bang their heads against trees. I assumed you meant it as a
metaphor, but perhaps I was wrong.

You have strange notions of what evolution "should have done" vs how
evolution actually works. There are lots of different ways organisms
survive and reproduce. How organism make a living, their ecological
niche, is one of the things which determine what "fittest" in
"survival of the fittest" actually means.

Think about what you say that doesn't make any sense. I assume you
used to play hide-and-seek. Did you try to run away at the first hint
someone might have discovered you? If so, all some enterprising
playmate would have had to do is shout "I see Maggsy", and in your
effort to escape a nonexistent threat, you would have given yourself
away.

More likely, you stayed in your hideout until the last possible
moment, betting that the seeker was merely trying to fake you out, or
perhaps that they would see someone else slower and more obvious.

Equivalently, all some enterprising proto-woodpecker would have had to
do is knock on a tree and grab any cowardly insects that followed your
reasoning above, as they abandoned their hideout and exposed
themselves. Perhaps that's what actually happened. Any old bill would
work just fine with that strategy.

Of course, that strategy doesn't work so well today, perhaps in part
because all the cowardly insects got eaten millions of years ago.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 04, Maggsy wrote
(in article<d3e0e32a-ddf9-4481...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> > > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to
> > > start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started
> > > getting harder over time?
> >
> > Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early
> > woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the
> > cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as
> > often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in
> > tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds
> > could get more food.
>
> where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or
> deep as modern birds?

fossils.

>
>
> > Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill, but
> > not as well.
> >
> > Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with
> > their beaks.
>
> and the beak is attached to the head,its going to effect the head and
> brain,thats the point.

which is why modern woodpeckers have, as stated, cranial modifications.

>
>
> > Woodpeckers are more intelligent than you are. It is entirely possible that
> > ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your
> > every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest,
> > creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.
>
> Goodbye,i don't feed trolls or cast pearls before swine.

and... you continue to display your lack of intelligence.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 04, jillery wrote
(in article<q6vsvc167jm546nm5...@4ax.com>):

you’re using too many words of too many syllables. He can’t, he refuses,
to understand.

[jillery]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 11:43:41 -0500, Wolffan <aklwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not fair! Jonathan complains I don't use enough words, and not enough
big words. Which is really strange, since he always has trouble
understanding even short simple sentences.

I don't know if Maggsy has that problem.

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 17:10:02 UTC, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/4/17 6:39 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
> >> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
> >>
> >>
> >> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
> >> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
> >
> > My problem is that it doesn't make any sense. for one thing the insects its trying to eat will feel the vibration and get away. or they should have done right if evolution is correct. they should have evolved to survive. Plus my point is why did the first bird do this,because at first the bill would have just been like any other bill ,but only getting harder over time. so the first bird to do this would have had no advantage to do it.
>
> Your problem arises, in large part, because you don't spend much time
> watching birds or insects.
>

and you do? so you be able to address my points them and refute them

[Maggsy]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:03 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
> >> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
> >>
> >>
> >> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
> >> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
> >>
> >> --
> >> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
> >>
> >> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> >> Attributed to Voltaire
> >
> >My problem is that it doesn't make any sense.
>
> ....to you. Which is no one's problem but yours.
>

so how does it make sense. explain rather than attacking me.

[Maggsy]

they bang their beaks which are attached to their heads.

[Maggsy]

so which is the better strategy? and why is it that many humans don't even want children or want big families. such instincts should have been breed out of humans by now according to evolution.

>
> >your answers just lead to more questions.
>
>
> All the best questions lead to more questions. That's how it's
> supposed to work.
>

why is it? if answers just lead to more questions then they are not good answers.

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 5 November 2017 02:55:02 UTC, jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> >> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
> >>
> >> Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds could get more food.
> >>
> >
> >
> >where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or deep as modern birds?
>
>
> We know woodpeckers have been around that long because we have fossils
> of them. Their fossils preserve the skull which shows they didn't
> have the anatomical adaptations which allow modern woodpeckers to peck
> wood so well.
>

where is your source for this?

[Maggsy]

you insulting me says a lot more about the kind of person you are than it does me. rougly translated you can't give me any answers for yor beliefs so you start insulting me.

[Maggsy]

as you the unbeliever has to fall back on to insults and condescending posts because they can't answer honest well thought out questions.

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/11/17 6:22 AM, Maggsy wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 17:10:02 UTC, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/4/17 6:39 AM, Maggsy wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>>>> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>>>> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>>>
>>> My problem is that it doesn't make any sense. for one thing the insects its trying to eat will feel the vibration and get away. or they should have done right if evolution is correct. they should have evolved to survive. Plus my point is why did the first bird do this,because at first the bill would have just been like any other bill ,but only getting harder over time. so the first bird to do this would have had no advantage to do it.
>>
>> Your problem arises, in large part, because you don't spend much time
>> watching birds or insects.
>
> and you do? so you be able to address my points them and refute them

Yes. The refutation re insects escaping is that bark is only so deep,
so the insects can't crawl deeper; insects risk revealing themselves by
their own noise if they move; and birds can follow faster than insects
can crawl. And obviously they have evolved to survive, since enough of
them survive to keep birds looking for them.

Re why the first birds did this: Remember evolution is gradual. Birds
start by picking out insects in loose bark that you could move even with
your own nose. There is an advantage, however, to being able to move
more and more strongly attached bark, so stronger and stronger beaks get
selected.

That's the longer answer. The short answer is: Duh. Watch some birds
and insects, and you would know all this already.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:22:38 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:02 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:44:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:05:02 UTC, ? Tiib wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:55:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
>> >> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>> >>
>> >> Woodpecker is intelligent bird and does not bang its head
>> >> against a tree.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191699/The-boy-11-taught-stricken-bird-pecker-chick-fell-nest.html
>> >
>> >That article says nothing about Woodpeckers not banging their head against trees.
>>
>> No, the article says that woodpeckers are intelligent birds.
>>
>> Anyone who has ever observed woodpeckers knows that they
>> don't bang their heads on anything.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov
>
>they bang their beaks which are attached to their heads.

Their necks are also attached to their heads, but nobody goes around
saying birds bang their necks on anything. Stop while you're behind.

[jillery]

The "better" strategy is whatever works for that particular organism
in that particular environment. IOW there is no one "better"
strategy.

>and why is it that many humans don't even want children or want big families. such instincts should have been breed out of humans by now according to evolution.

Incorrect. What you describe above is cultural, not genetic. And even
if it were, nobody but Creationists claim Evolution is obliged to
eliminate allegedly poor strategies.

>> >your answers just lead to more questions.
>>
>>
>> All the best questions lead to more questions. That's how it's
>> supposed to work.
>>
>
>why is it? if answers just lead to more questions then they are not good answers.

What you describe above is dogma, not knowledge. Since you're
discussing issues about the natural world, you need to get comfortable
with uncertainty. If you want absolute answers, stick with religion.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:03 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> >> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> >> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>> >>
>> >

>> >My problem is that it doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> ....to you. Which is no one's problem but yours.
>>
>
>so how does it make sense. explain rather than attacking me.

So what's your problem with *my* explanation? Is hide-and-seek too
complicated an analogy for you to understand?

[jillery]

Right here would have been a good place for you to have identified any
insult I posted about you. That you didn't suggests you know you
can't, and are running on auto-pilot because you have no honest or

[jillery]

Your failure to respond intelligently to the answers given says even
more about you. Just sayin'.

[jillery]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:28:52 -0800 (PST), Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 5 November 2017 02:55:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
>> >> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>> >>
>> >> Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds could get more food.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or deep as modern birds?
>>
>>
>> We know woodpeckers have been around that long because we have fossils
>> of them. Their fossils preserve the skull which shows they didn't
>> have the anatomical adaptations which allow modern woodpeckers to peck
>> wood so well.
>>
>
>where is your source for this?

"The Origin and Evolution of Birds" by Alan Feduccia:
********************************************
the oldest fossil woodpecker coming from the middle Miocene of North
America
********************************************

Do you intend to do any research on your own? There's this new
invention, called the Internet, perhaps you've heard of it. You
should try it, if only for the novelty of the experience.

>> >> Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill, but not as well.
>> >>
>> >> Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with their beaks.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >and the beak is attached to the head,its going to effect the head and brain,thats the point.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.audubon.org/news/how-woodpecker-bangs-without-brain-damage>
>>
>> *************************************************
>> When a woodpecker strikes a tree, the impact energy—energy that is
>> released during a collision—is converted to strain energy in the body.
>> Too much strain in the head can be catastrophic, but the woodpecker’s
>> incredible anatomy—including a specialized beak and skull—redirects
>> most of the strain into the rest of the body, instead of the head.
>> *************************************************

No response to the above. It answers your question about early
woodpeckers. Have you lost interest in your own question so soon?

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 11 November 2017 16:25:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:02 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:44:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
> > <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:05:02 UTC, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:55:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:
> > >> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
> > >>
> > >> Woodpecker is intelligent bird and does not bang its head
> > >> against a tree.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191699/The-boy-11-taught-stricken-bird-pecker-chick-fell-nest.html
> > >
> > >That article says nothing about Woodpeckers not banging their head against trees.
> >
> > No, the article says that woodpeckers are intelligent birds.
> >
> > Anyone who has ever observed woodpeckers knows that they
> > don't bang their heads on anything.
>

> they bang their beaks which are attached to their heads.

Lot of birds peck but only you call it "banging head against" whatever
they beak. Crowds of birds live on trees. It can be advantageous to be
capable to excavate holes into tree bark or trunk if you live there.
It is unclear why you suggest that something special was needed.
In real forests there are trees with various hardness of wood and
various stages of decaying so if a bird specializes in digging wood
then it can evolve efficiency in it gradually.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 11, Maggsy wrote
(in article<84f6f822-48b0-4ca2...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, 5 November 2017 16:45:03 UTC, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 Nov 04, Maggsy wrote
> > (in article<d3e0e32a-ddf9-4481...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 15:15:03 UTC, northe...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> > > > > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide
> > > > > to
> > > > > start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started
> > > > > getting harder over time?
> > > >
> > > > Woodpeckers have been around for at least 25 million years. Early
> > > > woodpeckers did not have the long, sticky, tongue, the hard beak, and the
> > > > cranial modifications that modern birds do. They did not drill as hard, as
> > > > often, or as deep as modern birds. However, they did eat mostly insects in
> > > > tree bark. Being able to drill deeply and quickly meant that some birds
> > > > could get more food.
> > >
> > > where is your evidence for early Woodpeckers that did not drill as hard,or
> > > deep as modern birds?
> >
> > fossils.

you failed to address this.

> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Woodpeckers are also part of a group including other birds which drill,
> > > > but
> > > > not as well.
> > > >
> > > > Woodpeckers don't 'bang their heads against a tree', they punch holes with
> > > > their beaks.
> > >
> > > and the beak is attached to the head,its going to effect the head and
> > > brain,thats the point.
> >
> > which is why modern woodpeckers have, as stated, cranial modifications.

you failed to address this.

> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Woodpeckers are more intelligent than you are. It is entirely possible
> > > > that
> > > > ants are more intelligent than you are. You are a very silly human. Your
> > > > every post shows how inferior you are to the most evolved, best, greatest,
> > > > creatures upon Earth: cats. And especially tigers.
> > >
> > > Goodbye,i don't feed trolls or cast pearls before swine.
> >
> > and... you continue to display your lack of intelligence.
>
> you insulting me says a lot more about the kind of person you are than it
> does me. rougly translated you can't give me any answers for yor beliefs so
> you start insulting me.

I stated facts: you simply lack the intelligence to competently argue your
position. Of course, if you actually had the intelligence to argue your
position, you would not do so, as you would also know that your position is
indefensible. Your original position was that woodpeckers ‘bang their heads
against trees’; it has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, by numerous
persons, that this is not the case. Further, you could, should you so desire,
actually observe woodpeckers in action. Hint: there would be a reason why
they got that name. They drill holes with their beaks. They have extensive
adaptations, particularly of their heads and necks, to further a life of
drilling holes with their beaks. Many of those adaptations are to their
skeletons; there have been 25 million years of fossils showing gradual
changes. There are other birds, relatives of woodpeckers, alive today which
aren’t as good at drilling holes with their beaks as woodpeckers are... and
which don’t have all of the adaptations that woodpeckers do. Rather than
attempt to address the actual evidence, because even your dim level of
cognition is sufficient to understand that you can’t, you froth about and
continue to display your ignorance and stupidity for all to see. Do keep it
up, son, as Peter der Gross is still missing in action I need a new squeaky
toy to play with.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 11, Maggsy wrote

(in article<36b5670c-9cf8-48b1...@googlegroups.com>):

laddie, she didn’t insult you. Hang around, I’ll insult you, all you’re
good for is target practice ’til Peter der Gross gets back.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

You're right that woodpeckers have a biological problem. Why doesn't the force with which they peck wood get transmitted to their brains, banging them back and forth against the inside of their skulls and causing terrible brain damage. It happens to NFL players. Why doesn't it happen to woodpeckers?

Well, obviously there's a biological solution to the problem, or woodpeckers couldn't make a living the way they do. You can read about the biological solution here...

http://coldcreek.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/JZoologyV270I3p462.x.pdf

but the short answer is that three things reduce the potential for brain injury from pecking. (1) small size reduces the stress on the brain for a given acceleration (2) short duration of impact, which increases the tolerable acceleration (3) orientation of the brain within the skull which increases the contact area between brain and skull and thus decreases the force per unit area.

It does not actually matter so much what the adaptations are that allow for safe, brain-trauma-free pecking. The anti-evolution argument, with respect to woodpecking, requires showing that the biological solution used by woodpeckers could not possibly have been reached by a series of small, gradual changes.

That seems like a very tough case to make. There's a whole range of behaviors birds can do to get insects from trees. They can land on the bark and pluck off any that are there on the surface. They can stick their beaks into large crevasses. They can knock away loose bits of bark that might be hiding bugs. They can knock away slightly less loose bits of bark. They can chip away at small crevasses to make them bigger so they can get at the bugs. They can start to hammer away at soft, rotten wood to find bugs. They can start to hammer away at slightly harder, but somewhat rotten wood. You can see where this is going.

Any slight heritable modification in the woodpecker anatomy that helped them advance along this path of ever more aggressive probing for bugs would give them an advantage over birds that lacked such modifications.

Here's a review of the evolution of woodpecker adaptations to woodpecking.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42347198/The_systematic_position_of_Hemicircus_an20160207-14055-1vgb634.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510487971&Signature=MmaYx3Pcg5PzaKjWFLWPxvvHoZ0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_systematic_position_of_Hemicircus_an.pdf

But the main point is not that we know exactly all the adaptive steps in detail, simply that in order to show that woodpeckers could not possibly have evolved one would have to show that there is some transition in their evolution which is impossible. And there seems no reason at all why the anatomical modifications that allow safe woodpecking could not have evolved in small steps.

[jillery]

A concise review of points previously posted. Let's see if repetition
helps.

[Jonathan]

I count 7 personal insults against 2 people in this one post
by you.

That's just slightly highly than your usual over/under
of 2.5 personal insults per post per person.

And she is right, you and most here resort to personal insults
more often than not.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Nov 12, Jonathan wrote
(in article<qpWdnQV4sqSg6ZXH...@giganews.com>):

cool. List ‘em.

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:19:19 -0500, Jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Even if your bald assertions above were correct, it's not up to you to
say what Maggsy thinks is insulting.

Back up your claims or back off.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:22:38 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:02 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:44:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:05:02 UTC, ? Tiib wrote:

>> >> On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 17:55:03 UTC+2, Maggsy wrote:

>> >> > If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

>> >> Woodpecker is intelligent bird and does not bang its head
>> >> against a tree.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191699/The-boy-11-taught-stricken-bird-pecker-chick-fell-nest.html

>> >That article says nothing about Woodpeckers not banging their head against trees.

>> No, the article says that woodpeckers are intelligent birds.
>>
>> Anyone who has ever observed woodpeckers knows that they
>> don't bang their heads on anything.

>they bang their beaks which are attached to their heads.

So?

You've started many of your posts here with "If evolution is
true...", followed by creationist canards (including this
one, that somehow evolution can't explain how woodpeckers
avoid serious injury) which have been addressed and refuted
many times. If you actually want to engage in a serious
discussion you might want to re-think that approach.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:03 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:

>> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> >> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

>> >> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> >> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?

>> >My problem is that it doesn't make any sense.

>> ....to you. Which is no one's problem but yours.

>so how does it make sense. explain rather than attacking me.

That was not an attack; it was an observation that if the
woodpecker's evolutionary adaptation to using its bill to
probe for insects doesn't make sense to *you*, that is no
one's problem but yours. An attack would look far different.

I suppose I could have provided some spoon-feeding, but that
would be a tacit assumption that you're incapable of using
Gurgle (or whatever your favorite search engine might be),
and would therefore constitute at least a mild attack.

That said, a simple 3-word Gurgle search (woodpecker bill
evolution) yields 43,000 hits, most of them not creation
tripe.

Enjoy!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:23:18 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>On Saturday, 4 November 2017 18:05:03 UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 06:39:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
>> <davidma...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 31 October 2017 16:40:02 UTC, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Maggsy
>> >> <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What's your problem with that? You do realize that "banging its head
>> >> against a tree" is a way to find food hiding under the bark, right?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>> >>
>> >> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> >> Attributed to Voltaire
>> >
>> >My problem is that it doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> ....to you. Which is no one's problem but yours.
>>
>
>so how does it make sense. explain rather than attacking me.

Oops; correct my previous. That should be 413,000 hits, not
43.000.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 03:02:53 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
>> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?
>
>You're right that woodpeckers have a biological problem. Why doesn't the force with which they peck wood get transmitted to their brains, banging them back and forth against the inside of their skulls and causing terrible brain damage. It happens to NFL players. Why doesn't it happen to woodpeckers?

Because woodpeckers are smarter than NFL players?

>Well, obviously there's a biological solution to the problem, or woodpeckers couldn't make a living the way they do. You can read about the biological solution here...
>
>http://coldcreek.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/JZoologyV270I3p462.x.pdf
>
>but the short answer is that three things reduce the potential for brain injury from pecking. (1) small size reduces the stress on the brain for a given acceleration (2) short duration of impact, which increases the tolerable acceleration (3) orientation of the brain within the skull which increases the contact area between brain and skull and thus decreases the force per unit area.
>
>It does not actually matter so much what the adaptations are that allow for safe, brain-trauma-free pecking. The anti-evolution argument, with respect to woodpecking, requires showing that the biological solution used by woodpeckers could not possibly have been reached by a series of small, gradual changes.
>
>That seems like a very tough case to make. There's a whole range of behaviors birds can do to get insects from trees. They can land on the bark and pluck off any that are there on the surface. They can stick their beaks into large crevasses. They can knock away loose bits of bark that might be hiding bugs. They can knock away slightly less loose bits of bark. They can chip away at small crevasses to make them bigger so they can get at the bugs. They can start to hammer away at soft, rotten wood to find bugs. They can start to hammer away at slightly harder, but somewhat rotten wood. You can see where this is going.
>
>Any slight heritable modification in the woodpecker anatomy that helped them advance along this path of ever more aggressive probing for bugs would give them an advantage over birds that lacked such modifications.
>
>Here's a review of the evolution of woodpecker adaptations to woodpecking.
>
>https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42347198/The_systematic_position_of_Hemicircus_an20160207-14055-1vgb634.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510487971&Signature=MmaYx3Pcg5PzaKjWFLWPxvvHoZ0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DThe_systematic_position_of_Hemicircus_an.pdf
>
>But the main point is not that we know exactly all the adaptive steps in detail, simply that in order to show that woodpeckers could not possibly have evolved one would have to show that there is some transition in their evolution which is impossible. And there seems no reason at all why the anatomical modifications that allow safe woodpecking could not have evolved in small steps.

He's been given several accurate answers and references, all
of which he ignored. Don't expect any acknowledgement here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:06:58 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Or, as usual, fall silent and run away.

(Was that an insult, jonathan? I'd call it a simple
observation based on posting history, but YMMV...)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 11:19:19 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

Really? I'd note that "this one post" by her consists solely
of the paragraph just above; for your edification I'll
repost it here:

"Right here would have been a good place for you to have
identified any insult I posted about you. That you didn't
suggests you know you can't, and are running on auto-pilot
because you have no honest or well thought out questions."

You see 7 insults against 2 people in that paragraph? Please
specify them, because I confess I see none at all. Thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:10:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, no actual insults? OK.

[Maggsy]

most of you guys on here are just trolls,people that can't answer questions with having to insult people,that says a lot more about you people than people like me. why can't you just admit you can't answer the questions and be honest for once?

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

You're right that woodpeckers have a biological problem. Why doesn't the force with which they peck wood get transmitted to their brains, banging them back and forth against the inside of their skulls and causing terrible brain damage. It happens to NFL players. Why doesn't it happen to woodpeckers?

[northe...@outlook.com]

Where are the insults?

[northe...@outlook.com]

I don't see any insults made in the post to which you reply. Could you please point out the seven insults against the two people? Thanks ever so much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 06:44:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Maggsy
<davidma...@yahoo.com>:

>most of you guys on here are just trolls,people that can't answer questions with having to insult people

That's not the accepted definition of a troll. A troll is
one who tries to start flamewars, by posting statements like

"most of you guys on here are just trolls,people that can't

answer questions with having to insult people". HTH

>,that says a lot more about you people than people like me. why can't you just admit you can't answer the questions and be honest for once?

Interesting, since in this case I'm the one asking the
unanswered question. Perhaps you meant your complaint for
jonathan?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:26:53 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

northe...@outlook.com:

Already asked, almost a week ago. No insults, so silence
from jonathan. As usual.

>> That's just slightly highly than your usual over/under
>> of 2.5 personal insults per post per person.
>>
>> And she is right, you and most here resort to personal insults
>> more often than not.
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>> >
>> > Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>> > Attributed to Voltaire
>> >

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 08:24:16 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

northe...@outlook.com:

>> most of you guys on here are just trolls,people that can't answer questions with having to insult people,that says a lot more about you people than people like me. why can't you just admit you can't answer the questions and be honest for once?
>
>Where are the insults?

Ask jonathan; from the content he's the one Maggsy's
complaining about.

[Bill]

Evolution is not the problem here, it's the explanation that
needs work. Your version requires a Lamarckian solution in
that it is the repeated behavior of the woodpecker that
causes morphological changes. Genetics has nothing to do
with it so there was no evolution.

What you suggest is that a bird needed some modification so
it changed. It was the need to change that drove the
modification and this required knowledge of the environment.
No mutations are required since the whole process is exactly
the opposite of what Darwinian evolution proposes.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Wow. No, there's no Lamarckism involved. Not remotely The anatomy of the bird undergoes a slight modification as the result of some mutation. That modification makes it more comfortable for the bird to peck just a bit harder. So it does. And as a result it gets more food than those without that minor genetic change. And as a result it leaves, on average, more progeny in the next generation. And over time, those with that minor genetic modification come to dominate the population. In no way does the bird need to identify a problem, think up a solution, and modify its genes.

You can argue, like most creationists would that a genetic modification that does that, say by changing the orientation of the brain in the skull, or strengthening some muscle in the neck, is impossible. But the scheme, as proposed in the links I gave is not remotely Lamarckian.

[Bill]

I disagree of course, but the unlikeliest explanations are
the most likely to prosper. It seems odd that this age of
evidence and science and certainty so readily accepts airy
conjecture. I don't dispute the existence of consensus and
popularity as fundamental to the current worldview, I just
disagree.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Why do you disagree? Do you continue to think that the proposed scheme is Lamarckian? If so, why? Or do you think the proposed scheme is unlikely on other grounds? You constantly complain that nobody engages with your ideas, but as soon as anyone does, you retreat into generalities rather than engaging with the specifics of your own argument and the counter arguments. After a few rounds of that, it's hardly surprising that most posters either ignore you, mock you, or dismiss you.

[Bill]

I thought my point was obvious, apparently not. The standard
view (the popular one) is that a gamete is changed by some
random mutation. The mutated gamete is a cell involved in
reproduction might pass along the mutation to the next
generation.

Since the mutation is random and caused by any number of
things external to the gamete, it can't be predicted, it's
effects can't be predicted. There is no way to know if the
mutation will be beneficial or destructive to the organism
that inherits it.

Because only gametes are affected, the environment of the
organism is irrelevant. The gamete knows nothing of the
environment and makes no allowance for it. All changes must
be genetic to be inherited. The conditions in the
environment, the needs of the organism or eventual benefits
are not factors in the mutation.

It's been argued here that a woodpecker changes because of
its environment which includes its own behavior. Mutations
to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

So far so good....

>
> It's been argued here that a woodpecker changes because of
> its environment which includes its own behavior.

No. It's been argued that the woodpecker changes its behavior because of random mutations. There might be many reasons for this - but as an example, a change in the muscular anatomy of the neck might give the woodpecker greater ability to peck wood harder or longer. In that particular environment, some of those changes are helpful. Woodpeckers that carry the mutations responsible for those changes out compete those without those changes.

>Mutations
> to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
> woodpecker-ness.

No. What "improves its woodpeckerness" is the environment selecting those birds which happened to get useful genetic changes out from among the myriad birds that did not get such changes.

>This directly contradicts the standard view
> of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
> appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.

There is absolutely nothing non-Darwinian about the scheme presented in those links (or as briefly explained here). It is a completely standard evolutionary paradigm. Random mutations occur. Some of them have effects on the woodpeckers anatomy. Some of those effects make it easier for the woodpecker to peck wood. Woodpeckers which happened to get those mutations get more "woodpeckery" and come to dominate the population.

The environment is not influencing which mutations occur; its influencing which mutants survive and prosper.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

I agree that yours is the standard view but is it correct? A
mutation that happens to provide some handy "adaptation" to
a bird is just a lucky accident, nothing noteworthy there.

In the case of a woodpecker, there must be a whole chain of
these accidents, each reinforcing the others. There doesn't
appear to be anything random here; the mutations had a goal.
Much too fortuitous to be credible in the context of
Darwinian evolution.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

OK. That's progress. Before you were calling it non-standard and/or Lamarckian. So that's progress.

>
> In the case of a woodpecker, there must be a whole chain of
> these accidents, each reinforcing the others. There doesn't
> appear to be anything random here; the mutations had a goal.

Indeed, there must have been sequential selection for advantageous mutations. Nothing about that requires or even suggests a goal. Mutations happen. If they provide an advantage, they get selected for.

> Much too fortuitous to be credible in the context of
> Darwinian evolution.

Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian." Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of course you've still not addressed the problem of how any argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted. You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore, according to your own earlier claims about interpretation of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?

>
> Bill

[Öö Tiib]

That chain was caused by lot of generations. Every woodpecker in
one generation is different in same way like all humans are
different from each other. Most of hatched woodpeckers die without
ever giving any offspring, usually as very young. Those few that
luck out likely have some slight advantage over others, and so are
best of breed among their generation. Next generation carries their
genes and mutations. Bigger change accumulates from those small
advantages over thousands of generations.

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>
> Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you
> were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian."
> Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of
> course you've still not addressed the problem of how any
> argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality
> is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably
> interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted.
> You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore,
> according to your own earlier claims about interpretation
> of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence
> presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of
> Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?

Since you argue that behavior and/or environment influence
the development of an organism, mutated genes are merely
incidental.

Since woodpeckers keep being modified to suit its
environment, they must keep getting the same mutations.
Since most birds are not woodpeckers, they aren't affected
by these mutations which must mean that there are woodpecker
specific mutations.

From this we know that mutations are not random and their
outcomes are predictable. We know that the environment and
behavior of the organism determines the mutation. This must
mean that either evolution is false or that it is impossible
to explain without tripping over absurdities.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 19 November 2017 02:55:02 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you
> > were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian."
> > Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of
> > course you've still not addressed the problem of how any
> > argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality
> > is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably
> > interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted.
> > You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore,
> > according to your own earlier claims about interpretation
> > of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence
> > presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of
> > Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?
>
> Since you argue that behavior and/or environment influence
> the development of an organism, mutated genes are merely
> incidental.
>
> Since woodpeckers keep being modified to suit its
> environment, they must keep getting the same mutations.

Wrong. Woodpeckers keep being mutated in thousand different tiny ways
in any direction. The woodpeckers with more benefits and less
disadvantages for woodpeckering are more likely to give offspring and
so more likely inherit the genes. Webbed feet do not give any
advantages to dig out bark beetles so woodpeckers with mutations
that can lead to webbed feet just die off. As result most of woodpecker
population is close to ideal for their lifestyle in few tens of
thousands of generations.

> Since most birds are not woodpeckers, they aren't affected
> by these mutations which must mean that there are woodpecker
> specific mutations.

Again wrong. All birds get mutations in any direction. Different bird
species do different things and so benefit from different mutations.

> From this we know that mutations are not random and their
> outcomes are predictable. We know that the environment and
> behavior of the organism determines the mutation. This must
> mean that either evolution is false or that it is impossible
> to explain without tripping over absurdities.

Desperately pretending that you misunderstand what is told
to you is impossible without tripping over absurdities.

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 7:55:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you
> > were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian."
> > Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of
> > course you've still not addressed the problem of how any
> > argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality
> > is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably
> > interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted.
> > You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore,
> > according to your own earlier claims about interpretation
> > of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence
> > presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of
> > Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?
>
> Since you argue that behavior and/or environment influence
> the development of an organism, mutated genes are merely
> incidental.

How can mutated genes be "merely incidental"? If there were no mutations there'd be nothing for natural selection to act on.

You seem to have misunderstood. Mutations happen. If the mutations make the bird more fit in its environment, either by altering its anatomy or its behavior, then the bird's descendants, bearing that mutation come to dominate the population.

>
> Since woodpeckers keep being modified to suit its
> environment, they must keep getting the same mutations.

No. Once a mutation occurs, there it is. If it is selected for in that environment, the mutation will become common, because bird with the mutation will leave more descendants - that particular mutation is inherited, it does not occur anew in each subsequent generation.

If there are going to be additional modifications to the organism, then there will have to be additional mutations.

> Since most birds are not woodpeckers, they aren't affected
> by these mutations which must mean that there are woodpecker
> specific mutations.

There are certainly mutations responsible for woodpeckers evolving to become woodpeckers, sure.

When you say other birds "aren't affected by these mutations," I cannot tell what you mean. Across broad families of birds, there are many shared genes, but the differences in the genome between, say a crane and a sapsucker, are sufficiently great that it would be hard to point to a mutation in the crane genome and say - ahah, this is a woodpecker mutation. Mutations don't come with a label saying "Make a woodpecker," they are just changes in the sequence of DNA.

There are many, many mutational differences between birds of any two genera of modern bird. If you could trace back to their common ancestor you could compare their genomic sequences with that of their common ancestor, and you could point to all the mutations specific to, say, a crane and a sapsucker. But that's just the way things turned out. Cranes and sapsuckers wee not predestined to evolve. It's just what happened.

>
> From this we know that mutations are not random and their
> outcomes are predictable.

No, we know no such thing. Mutations are indeed random. Woodpeckers became woodpeckers because, by chance, their ancestors ended up with those mutations. Other birds that, by chance, didn't get all those mutations, ended up as sapsuckers, for example. The ancestors of woodpeckers did not decide one day to evolve into woodpeckers and therefore to acquire the right set of mutations. A bird that was vaguely woodpeckerish got some random mutations that made it a bit better at doing the things we now see woodpeckers do. There was no plan to make a woodpecker.

>We know that the environment and
> behavior of the organism determines the mutation.

No. Mutations occur randomly. The environment determines which of the random mutations persist in the population, because they make a modification to the organism that is beneficial in that environment.

You can say that the environment determines which mutations, out of a random bunch of them, end up persisting in the organism and its descendants, but the environment does not determine which specific mutations happen. [At least not in the sense you are talking about - the environment, in the form of radiation and chemical exposures my chemically determine what sorts of mutations happen, but even then the mutations are random with respect to their effect on the organism.

>This must
> mean that either evolution is false or that it is impossible
> to explain without tripping over absurdities.

You certainly trip over absurdities, but that's not a problem with the theory of evolution.

>
> Bill

[jillery]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:54:15 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill Rogers wrote:
>
>...
>
>>
>> Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you
>> were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian."
>> Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of
>> course you've still not addressed the problem of how any
>> argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality
>> is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably
>> interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted.
>> You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore,
>> according to your own earlier claims about interpretation
>> of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence
>> presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of
>> Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?
>
>Since you argue that behavior and/or environment influence
>the development of an organism, mutated genes are merely
>incidental.

Once again, your inability to understand written English perverts
coherent conversation.

>Since woodpeckers keep being modified to suit its
>environment, they must keep getting the same mutations.
>Since most birds are not woodpeckers, they aren't affected
>by these mutations which must mean that there are woodpecker
>specific mutations.
>
>From this we know that mutations are not random and their
>outcomes are predictable. We know that the environment and
>behavior of the organism determines the mutation. This must
>mean that either evolution is false or that it is impossible
>to explain without tripping over absurdities.
>
>Bill

[jillery]

There's your problem. It's organisms which are ultimately affected by
genetic mutations, not the gametes. So your conclusions based on your
incorrect understanding are also incorrect.

>The gamete knows nothing of the
>environment and makes no allowance for it. All changes must
>be genetic to be inherited. The conditions in the
>environment, the needs of the organism or eventual benefits
>are not factors in the mutation.
>
>It's been argued here that a woodpecker changes because of
>its environment which includes its own behavior.

Of course, nobody but you argues any such thing. Once again, you show
that your inability to understand written English interferes with
coherent conversation.

>Mutations
>to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
>woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
>of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
>appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.
>
>Bill

It appears Lamarckian only to you. It is very Darwinian.

[jillery]

Nope, that's not it.

>What you suggest is that a bird needed some modification so
>it changed. It was the need to change that drove the
>modification and this required knowledge of the environment.
>No mutations are required since the whole process is exactly
>the opposite of what Darwinian evolution proposes.
>
>Bill

Not only does the above not suggest what you say, but what you say is
factually false. Organisms change not because they "needed to", but
because they acquired random mutations, which then effect change,
whether the organisms needed to or not.

Your comments above are typical of Creationist strawmen.

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Sure, you don't find it credible. But a few posts ago you
>> were calling the standard Darwinian process "Lamarckian."
>> Your incredulity is not a convincing argument. And of
>> course you've still not addressed the problem of how any
>> argument could be convincing to anyone if (1) all reality
>> is subjective and (2) all evidence is inevitably
>> interpreted to support the conclusion we already wanted.
>> You find Darwinian evolution implausible. Therefore,
>> according to your own earlier claims about interpretation
>> of evidence, you will inevitably interpret any evidence
>> presented to you as evidence of the implausibilty of
>> Darwinian evolution. So what's to discuss?
>
> Since you argue that behavior and/or environment influence
> the development of an organism, mutated genes are merely
> incidental.

There is the first problem right there. Why would the fact that the
environment influences the development of an organism render the genetic
mutation incidental?

"But for" the genetic mutation, some interaction between organism and
environment would be impossible. That means the genetic mutation is a
causal factor. The environment can act only on those genes that are
there, after all.

>
> Since woodpeckers keep being modified to suit its
> environment, they must keep getting the same mutations.
> Since most birds are not woodpeckers, they aren't affected
> by these mutations which must mean that there are woodpecker
> specific mutations.

It's rather unclear what you mean by this. Once a beneficial mutation
has occurred, it is passed on to the next generation through
inheritance. Because it is beneficial, it will be passed on
statistically more often than the profile without the mutation. So it's
not necessary that they must be getting "the same mutation", if that is
what you mean.

If you mean that they must be getting more mutations with similar
effect, so that the ability to hammer more is gradually improved, then
no, these mutations are not woodpecker specific. But only in woodpeckers
and related species will they be beneficial and hence be selected for.

Birds that live in an environment where the prey lives under the earth,
or on leaves, won't benefit from the mutation, it is (at best) neutral.
One and the same mutation can be beneficial in one environment, neutral
in another and detrimental in a third.

The same holds true for the "genetic" environment, so to speak. So some
mutations will only be beneficial if some other mutation had occurred
before. (and some can only occur if another has happened before, because
they are a mutation of the mutation) This creates the path dependency of
evolution that results in the observed pattern of relationships between
species. So for a non-woodpecker bird, a mutation that, say, better
cushions the brain for bumps will still happen, but if they have not
already develop a beak suitable for hammering won't have a positive net
effect on the species, and probably (baring drift) will not spread
across the population.

>
> From this we know that mutations are not random and their
> outcomes are predictable.

Not really, no. The mutations are random and affect all equally, but
once a mutation has happened, we could indeed predict if, given the
environment etc of the organism, it is likely to be beneficial, neutral
or detrimental.

We know that the environment and
> behavior of the organism determines the mutation.

We know no such thing. Indeed, everything we know indicates that the
mutation is not influenced by the environment (well, if you wanted to
nitpick,the rate of mutations is influenced by the environment, e.g. how
much radiation there is, but that influences frequency of mutations, not
which ones occur)

This must
> mean that either evolution is false or that it is impossible
> to explain without tripping over absurdities.

Or that youstill haven;t thought quite through what the ToE actually says
>
> Bill
>

[Burkhard]

That might confuse Bill even more - depending on what he meant with "a
woodpecker". My guess is (but with him it's hard to tell) that he means
the species rather than an individual. And of course as a species
woodpeckers change because of the environment, because the environment
determines which mutations are getting fixed.

But it's hard to tell with Bill, and that he swaps sometimes in
mid-sentence between species and individual for sure does nto help his
thinking.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:55:03 AM UTC-4, Maggsy wrote:
> If evolution is true how would the woodpecker evolve? Did a bird decide to start banging its head against a tree one day and then its bill started getting harder over time?

Even if your mission here is to show that birds can't evolve from reptiles or that "reptiles can't grow feathers" you may at least appreciate the close harmony here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNJE6t6fZE

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 09:35:22 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Not sure how anything anybody could say would confuse Bill any more
than he confuses himself. It's certainly easy enough to distinguish
between organism, ex. a woodpecker, and species, ex. woodpeckers.

To rephrase more precisely, individual organisms don't change
genetically because of their environment. Species change genetically
because of mutations which emerge randomly, but accumulate
directionally, relative to the environment.

Elsethread Bill asserts that random genetic changes can't account for
biological diversity. This is an IDiot claim which fails to consider
that the environment imposes selective survival and reproduction
relative to organism's phenotypes. Organisms with mutations
beneficial relative to that environment tend to reproduce more
successfully than those which don't.

Nobody in T.O. suggested or implied acquisition of features because
the organism "needs" them. Behavior is part of an organism's
interaction with the environment. To the degree behavior is
controlled by genetics, to that same degree behavior can be passed on
to an organism's offspring.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:54:15 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Perhaps you should actually address Bill Rogers' points, and
answer his question, rather than posting further evidence
that you believe, despite your prior claims to the contrary,
that objective reality exists and can be observed?

Every time this contradiction in your posts is brought up
you decline to address it. Why is that, if you're serious
about holding serious discussions?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 03:09:07 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

IMHO, and leaving aside the inherent contradiction in
attempting to discuss objective reality when "everything is
subjective", all of his arguments are predicated on the idea
the evolution has a "goal", possibly combined with the idea
that individuals, rather than populations, evolve; his
"woodpecker changes because of its environment", taken
literally, is an example of conclusions based on these
ideas.

>>Mutations
>>to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
>>woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
>>of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
>>appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.

>It appears Lamarckian only to you. It is very Darwinian.

Yep; classic "survival of the fittest".

[Bill]

I don't know what you believe I neglected to reply to so I
don't feel bad for not replying. I doubt that you've
noticed, but my comments have been about the logic of the
arguments put forth to defend the ToE.

I have expressed no opinion on the correctness of the theory
itself, just the ways in which explanations are attempted.
Since no one can admit that these explanation can be flawed,
they are defended, by reflex.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

I think your comments have shown simply that you don't understand the claims of the theory. Until you understand the claims of the theory you're not likely to think anything sensible about explanations or defenses of those claims.

Rather than objecting to the motives of those who defend those claims (it's just by reflex because they cannot admit they are wrong) someday you might consider trying to understand the claims of the theory and the evidence that its supporters adduce in its defense.

You're never likely to win a debate if you cannot argue both sides convincingly, and since you seem perplexed by the difference between random mutation and natural selection on the one hand and Lamarckism on the other, I think you're unlikely to prove a competent debater on the issue.

And the following are the epistemological points Bob was referring to, from earlier in the thread, which you've never addressed....

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 03:11:19 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Not only is that "not it", it shows conclusively that Bill
knows essentially *nothing* about evolution. "Cart before
horse" with a vengeance...

>>What you suggest is that a bird needed some modification so
>>it changed. It was the need to change that drove the
>>modification and this required knowledge of the environment.
>>No mutations are required since the whole process is exactly
>>the opposite of what Darwinian evolution proposes.

>Not only does the above not suggest what you say, but what you say is
>factually false. Organisms change not because they "needed to", but
>because they acquired random mutations, which then effect change,
>whether the organisms needed to or not.
>
>Your comments above are typical of Creationist strawmen.

Seems so.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 09:14:59 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Actually, in sort of a weird, twisted way, one *could* make
such an assertion as a correct statement, since organisms
which acquire through mutation variations which they "need"
to better survive in a given environment will enjoy
increased fitness, and thus higher relative reproductive
rates, in that environment. Of course, he has cause and
effect ass-backward, and no one with even the faintest
understanding of the process would phrase it that way, but
we're not talking about such a person.

> Behavior is part of an organism's
>interaction with the environment. To the degree behavior is
>controlled by genetics, to that same degree behavior can be passed on
>to an organism's offspring.
>
>
>>>> Mutations
>>>> to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
>>>> woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
>>>> of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
>>>> appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> It appears Lamarckian only to you. It is very Darwinian.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:47:44 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Nope. As with all evolutionary processes, a fortuitous
genetic change was subjected to selection by the
environment, and if beneficial was retained in future
generations due to differential reproductive success.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

IOW, you have it exactly backward.

[Bill]

I hadn't thought of this discussion as a debate. My purpose
has been to show that the various explanations offered are
garbled nonsense that only explain how subtle contradictions
can be.

>
> And the following are the epistemological points Bob was
> referring to, from earlier in the thread, which you've
> never addressed....
>
> "And of course you've still not addressed the
> problem of how any argument could be convincing to
> anyone if (1) all reality is subjective and (2) all
> evidence is inevitably interpreted to support the
> conclusion we already wanted.

That was part of another discussion entirely and not
relevant to this one. It is routinely cited to distract from
anything else I might say. When I realized that the point
was beyond the comprehension of those in that thread, I quit
discussing it.

> You find Darwinian
> evolution implausible. Therefore, according to your own
> earlier claims about interpretation of evidence, you
> will inevitably interpret any evidence presented to you
> as evidence of the implausibilty of Darwinian evolution.
> So what's to discuss?"

I clearly said that it was the explanations of the Toe that
are absurd, not the Toe itself. Those are two different
things. It seems to me that it's my pointing out the errors
that offends everyone.

Bill

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:21:46 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

If so, that would make his disclaimer about being and IDiot
Creationist something of a paradox.

>>>Mutations
>>>to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
>>>woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
>>>of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
>>>appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.
>
>>It appears Lamarckian only to you. It is very Darwinian.
>
>Yep; classic "survival of the fittest".

--

[jillery]

Incorrect. In fact, your comments have been about strawman arguments
you created yourself.

>I have expressed no opinion on the correctness of the theory
>itself, just the ways in which explanations are attempted.
>Since no one can admit that these explanation can be flawed,
>they are defended, by reflex.

Nope, that's not it.

[jillery]

Once again, what are absurd are your strawman misrepresentations, not
the explanations themselves.

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 12:39:13 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

I leave it as an exercise whether your's or Bill's assertions are the
more twisted and weird 8-)

>> Behavior is part of an organism's
>>interaction with the environment. To the degree behavior is
>>controlled by genetics, to that same degree behavior can be passed on
>>to an organism's offspring.
>>
>>
>>>>> Mutations
>>>>> to its genetic material are alleged to improve its
>>>>> woodpecker-ness. This directly contradicts the standard view
>>>>> of Darwinian evolution. Even if not Lamarckian (which it
>>>>> appears to be), it is also not Darwinian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It appears Lamarckian only to you. It is very Darwinian.

--

[Bill]

Of course! The woodpeckers who didn't get the fortuitous
genetic mutation became kiwis. Everything falls into place
and all is well. Thanks.

Bill

[jillery]

Willful stupidity continues to hold you in its thrall.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>

> > On Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, Bill

> > wrote:
> >> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:54:15 -0600, the following

> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill
> >> > <fre...@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >>Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> >>

But the various explanations are not garbled nonsense. Your understanding of them is indeed garbled, though. So I guess that means that they are garbled nonsense in your subjective reality.

>
> >
> > And the following are the epistemological points Bob was
> > referring to, from earlier in the thread, which you've
> > never addressed....
> >
> > "And of course you've still not addressed the
> > problem of how any argument could be convincing to
> > anyone if (1) all reality is subjective and (2) all
> > evidence is inevitably interpreted to support the
> > conclusion we already wanted.
>
> That was part of another discussion entirely and not
> relevant to this one. It is routinely cited to distract from
> anything else I might say. When I realized that the point
> was beyond the comprehension of those in that thread, I quit
> discussing it.

The point is not remotely beyond anyone's comprehension here. Plenty of us are familiar with the philosophy of science and various versions of anti-realism, which seem like closest thing going to your claims. I've offered you, in the past, various ways to clarify your meaning or to add nuance, or to go to sources about ideas related to yours. It seems you prefer to ignore all that and just claim that everybody's either out to get you or too dense to understand your profundities.

>
> > You find Darwinian
> > evolution implausible. Therefore, according to your own
> > earlier claims about interpretation of evidence, you
> > will inevitably interpret any evidence presented to you
> > as evidence of the implausibilty of Darwinian evolution.
> > So what's to discuss?"
>
> I clearly said that it was the explanations of the Toe that
> are absurd, not the Toe itself. Those are two different
> things. It seems to me that it's my pointing out the errors
> that offends everyone.

But you specified no explanation at all. From the context it seems you were referring to various posts and links about woodpecker evolution. Yet you produced no quotation from them to show how anything written there was suggestive of Lamarckism or inconsistent with standard views of the theory of evolution.

You also did not point out any specific errors, so how could anyone be offended? You misunderstood the articles, showed that you cannot tell the difference between natural selection and Lamarckian directed mutation. There's a muddle of absurdities, plenty of error, and confusion, but it's all coming from you.


>
> Bill

[Burkhard]

Well, that might look like this in your subjective reality. In the one
the rest of us share, nobody feels offended, and you did not point out
any errors.

Rather, you displayed a considerable confusion about a) what the ToE
actually says and b) what Lamarck had said,
which people patently and campy corrected,