Woodpecker Creation Proof

[Abiel]

I was chatting with a chap yesterday, and he told me that he was convinced by creationism because of the woodpecker,

The arguement went something like this:

1.The woodpecker has a beak as hard as steel.
2.It has special air pockety things(?) around it's brain to prevent brain damage or death-by-head-banging.
3.These two features had to come into being simultanously, in one generation, else the forest would be strewn with dead non-breeding woodpeckers, with no chance of genes being transfered to the next generation.
4.Hence creationism is true.

For me, this brought to mind the quote 'but the babel fish is a dead giveaway'...


Any thoughts???

 

[Jet Black]

I was chatting with a chap yesterday, and he told me that he was convinced by creationism because of the woodpecker,

The arguement went something like this:

1.The woodpecker has a beak as hard as steel.
2.It has special air pockety things(?) around it's brain to prevent brain damage or death-by-head-banging.
3.These two features had to come into being simultanously, in one generation, else the forest would be strewn with dead non-breeding woodpeckers, with no chance of genes being transfered to the next generation.
4.Hence creationism is true.

For me, this brought to mind the quote 'but the babel fish is a dead giveaway'...


Any thoughts???

an IC argument. The problem with these arguments is that they are too hideously simplistic to actually sensibly represent anything. see the behaviour of the woodpecker could have started off simply as something like getting insects out of the wood. those woodpeckers with harder beaks would get more insects. the harder beaks would result in increased jarring of the brain, so those with a little cushioning would do better. eventually the woodpeckers would get so good at it, that they also provide themselves with a rudimentary nest. It is also worth noting that woodpeckers tend to bore in soft wood or dead wood. they tend to avoid things like mahogany and oak.

the woodpecker is also an interesting example of deception from AIG, though their complaint concerns the tongue. notice the dishonest portrayal of evolution:

"...how could the unique arrangement for the woodpecker’s tongue have evolved, if, in the beginning, its tongue was anchored in the back of the beak, as it is in ordinary birds? How did the tongue manage to move into the right nostril? If the anchor suddenly hopped from the back of the beak up into the right nostril, the tongue would be too short. And during all the intermediate stages, would the tongue have been long enough to reach the insects and worms inside a tree so the woodpecker could eat and survive?"

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

- just because you can't imagine what an intermediate might be like, doesn't mean that intermediates don't exist.

 

[Mistermystery]

It's the babelfish indeed. It's basically a tired argument from "complexity". Like this one: Jet allready provided you a refutation on the woodpecker.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

Claim CB310:

The bombardier beetle can't be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.
Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Book, pp. 51-55.
AIG, 1990. The amazing bombardier beetle. Creation Ex Nihilo 12(1): 29.
Response:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway which accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with [Isaak 1997]. One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
   1. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
   2. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles [Forsyth 1970].
   3. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
   4. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus [Eisner et al. 2000].
   5. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
   All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.
   
2. Bombardier beetles illustrate other aspects of life which look undesigned.
   
   • With design, we expect similar forms to be created for similar functions and different forms for different functions [Morris 1974, 70]. However, what we see is different forms for similar functions. Many ground beetles have very similar habits and habitats as centipedes, but their forms differ greatly. Different groups of bombardier beetles use very different mechanisms for the same function of aiming their spray. [Eisner 1958; Eisner and Aneshansley 1982]
   • Some forms have no function. Some bombardier beetles have vestigial flight wings. [Erwin 1970, 46,55,91,114-115,119]
   • If bombardier beetles have a purpose, then death is an integral part of it, since the beetles are predators (some, as larvae, are parasitoids, gradually eating pupae of other beetles [Erwin 1967]), and their spray is a defense against other predators. Many creationists claim that death was not part of God's design.

Links:


Isaak, Mark, 1997. Bombardier beetles and the argument of design. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
References:

1. Erwin, Terry L., 1967. Bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of North America: Part II. Biology and behavior of Brachinus pallidus Erwin in California. Coleopterists' Bulletin 21: 41-55.
2. Erwin, Terry L., 1970. A reclassification of bombardier beetles and a taxonomic revision of the North and Middle American species (Carabidae: Brachinida). Quaestiones Entomologicae 6: 4-215.
3. Eisner, T., 1958. The protective role of the spray mechanism of the bombardier beetle, Brachynus ballistarius Lec. Journal of Insect Physiology 2: 215-220.
4. Eisner, T. and D. J. Aneshansley, 1982. Spray aiming in bombardier beetles: jet deflection by the Coanda effect. Science 215: 83-85.
5. Eisner, T., D. J. Aneshansley, M. Eisner, A. B. Attygalle, D. W. Alsop and J. Meinwald, 2000. Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus). Journal of Experimental Biology 203: 1265-1275.
6. Forsyth, D. J., 1970. The structure of the defence glands of the Cicindelidae, Amphizoidae, and Hygrobiidae (Insecta: Coleoptera). J. Zool. Lond. 160: 51-69.
7. Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

 

[Abiel]

I didn't know the woodpecker thing was so well known! My problem is I'm not that clever, and I understand arguments neither for or against evolution/creationism. Sadly I try not to think about it too hard, else it sets me spinning. So, sadly, I'm a bit of a flip flopper on the issue- I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, and possible ones too, even if they contradict! Standard response- 'I wasn't there, so I don't know'!

But I dont buy the woodpecker thing.

 

[Jet Black]

I didn't know the woodpecker thing was so well known!

I think almost all creationist arguments are well known, since they are all more or less versions of the same thing. argument from incredulity being the biggie.

My problem is I'm not that clever, and I understand arguments neither for or against evolution/creationism.

no problem..... woodpeckers are cool though aren't they?

Sadly I try not to think about it too hard, else it sets me spinning. So, sadly, I'm a bit of a flip flopper on the issue- I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, and possible ones too, even if they contradict! Standard response- 'I wasn't there, so I don't know'!

But I dont buy the woodpecker thing.

don't buy what about it?

The problem is that if you accept the woodpecker argument, there are a whole raft of really nasty diseases, illnesses, parasites and organisms that would face similar problems if you don't allow gradual evolution.

here is an excellent parody of the irreducible complexity argument:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/

 

[Abiel]

I
don't buy what about it?

Dont buy that it is correct. Even a dimmy like me can spot a crass oversimplification at 1000 yards!

 

[Abiel]

I
here is an excellent parody of the irreducible complexity argument:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/

Yuck!!! That has put me off lunch. I think I can feel another thread coming on...

 

[Jet Black]

Yuck!!! That has put me off lunch. I think I can feel another thread coming on...

.... sorry about that, I think I should have put a little warning there.

 

[caravelair]

oh my! i can't believe it, but i've actually heard someone use that woodpecker argument before!