[Aquinasfan]

Your snail sequence pretty much proves that human beings developed from a primordial soup many years ago and that I shouldn't be concerned that the fossil record shows morphological stasis as a rule. The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

[VadeRetro]

The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

Nope. It's a new one on me. Not that I'm incurious, but I don't know that one. The only attempted evolutionary treatment that I've seen is the hostile one you linked earlier concocted by the ID zealot.

I've been getting "Stump the Dummies" played with me for three years now on these threads. Occasionally I get stumped. Even when somebody comes up with an evolutionary scenario, say, for the bombardier beetle, the creationists seamlessly and without acknowledgement retreat to the next trench of "And what's the proof of that?" Count all the "maybes" on that web page!"

When you first linked the woodpecker pages, I commented that a Behe proof of design is that Behe didn't understand how a thing could have evolved. A Dawkins rebuttal is that "Evolution is smarter than you are!"

Looking at a woodpecker, I'm inclined to ask, "Well, how did you get your tongue all tangled up like that?" It might answer, "Works for me!"

Not understanding something isn't a miracle. We used to think everything was a miracle and that was wrong.

[VadeRetro]

I see you've actually asked me about the beak, not the tongue. Clearly, you meant the tongue. Anyway, that's where I see the greater puzzle.

[edsheppa]

The only problem remaining is the evolution of the woodpecker beak. Care to hazard an explanation?

Ah yes. Clearly if one doesn't know everything then one doesn't know anything.