30 May 15
Originally posted by C HessNo. It had to be created that way in the beginning. There is no way a bird could evolve and certainly not with the features of a woodpecker. It had to be designed that way. It would be stupid to say an airplane or helicopter just evolved, because we know intelligent men had to design them. It is even more stupid to say a woodpecker just evolved that way. 😏
So the woodpecker has evolved features useful for its particular adaptation in nature, as evolution predicts. Yes?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
30 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe brilliant thing about Darwin's idea of natural selection is that literally any adaptation can be explained as the result of small incremental changes over many generations. So even if we had no idea how the woodpecker evolved, we can safely say that it didn't have to be created that way from the beginning. While I'm not very familiar with the evolution of woodpeckers specifically, I would say that their extraordinary adaptations are undoubtedly the result of co-evolution:
No. It had to be created that way in the beginning.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_33
Mind you, I'm not saying anything about their specific evolution, because I don't know enough about it. I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong when you say that woodpeckers absolutely defy any explanation from the theory of evolution. They clearly do not.
30 May 15
Originally posted by C HessDarwin was not brilliant. Darwin was ignorant. His ignorance has transformed atheists into evilution morons. 😏
The brilliant thing about Darwin's idea of natural selection is that literally any adaptation can be explained as the result of small incremental changes over many generations. So even if we had no idea how the woodpecker evolved, we can safely say that it didn't have to be created that way from the beginning. While I'm not very familiar with the evolution of ...[text shortened]... t woodpeckers absolutely defy any explanation from the theory of evolution. They clearly do not.
30 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you, I surmise, consider yourself head and shoulders above Darwin in intelligence, to say nothing of Dawkins. Your bright shiny intelligence stands over all those pathetic dudes, right?
Darwin was not brilliant. Darwin was ignorant. His ignorance has transformed atheists into evilution morons. 😏
Can you see sarcasm when you read it?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
31 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm sorry, but when you come up with a scientific theory that doesn't invoke magical sky daddies, stands up to one hundred and fifty years of intense scrutiny and a growing body of scientific knowledge, is useful in a variety of scientific branches from psychology and medicine to programming and aeronautics*, and continuously provide useful predictions, that's when you get to dismiss Darwin's legacy by calling him an ignoramus.
Darwin was not brilliant. Darwin was ignorant. His ignorance has transformed atheists into evilution morons. 😏
Before you do all that, your words are merely screen clutter, as far as I'm concerned. 😏
* borrowing the principles of mutation and selection - evolutionary programming and strategies - from the theory of biological evolution.