“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas


Thursday, October 04, 2007

Crows, the new missing link!!!

Uh oh, the evolutionists are going to be partying all night over this news...

WASHINGTON - Mounting tiny video cameras to the tail feathers of crows, researchers discovered that the birds use a variety of tools to seek food, and even make their own tools, plucking, smoothing and bending twigs and grass stems.

"We observed a new mode of tool use that was not known before. We saw them use tools on the ground, using a little grass stem to poke and fish into nests," researcher Christian Rutz of England's University of Oxford said in a telephone interview.

New Caledonian crows had been known to use sticks to probe rotting trees for grubs, but they were never seen to use tools on the ground before.


A crow that does tricks isn't proof that people came from birds billions of years ago. I'm sorry, I don't care how many crude tools a crow designs and uses to catch food, it's still just a stupid crow and it belongs on my plate marinated in Dales, with a side of fava peas and a nice Chianti, should I decide to kill it and eat it.

20 comments:

Kevin said...

I'm not sure a crow would be very appetizing to me. Haha.

So that was todays news, tomorrow's news?

A turtle was pulled over yesterday for going 65 in a 55 in a car using leaded fuel. Of course the turtle didn't know it was illegal for him to be driving that car, because in his species they haven't developed unleaded fuel yet.

Ed said...

@kevin5:02,

Uh...what?

Kevin said...

I was just making a joke about how stupid this is. So a crow uses some leaves for hunting. I dont think its a very scientific find. Its just another animal that uses tools.

Anonymous said...

If you knew anything about evolution you would not think people came from birds. I usually get a chuckle when people say we "came from monkeys" but this is just ridiculous.

Crows are some of the more intelligent creatures on the planet but I guess that does not really matter to you.

Kevin said...

Are you talking to me or Ed? If me, reread the comments and the article because I never said that, and Ed suggested it was a dumb theory.

ed said...

@anon7:55,

By definition, strict evolutionists think that all creatures, trees, worms, birds, humans, fish came from a single miraculous lightnening strike in the legendary pool of primordial ooze somewhere, and evolved from that single organism...no?

Anonymous said...

The phrase "came from birds" indicates that birds our are direct ancestor as does the phrase came from monkeys. The line that became birds diverged from a very different group of animals than that of mammals of which homo sapiens are but one branch.

As for the lightning strike, it is not really like that but the thing that intrigues me is the word miraculous. "Strict evolutionists" do not suppose to say why life is there or ay such reason behind it, they simply attempt to explain the how life has evolved on this planet. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They just do not believe in a literal translation of their various religious texts.

The example I like to give is our friend Canis Familiaris, the dog. If humans can create the myriad forms of dog present in the world, think what a form of higher intelligence could do over 5 billion years to a single cell. As a believer in god, I would imagine you believe it a higher intelligence, no? This is also supposing you think the earth is more than 5000 years old.

Not trying to start an argumebt, just offering a better explanation of something very misunderstood, evolution.

Kevin said...

Well actually, the earth doesn't have to be less than 5000 years old for the Bible to be true. Read Inherit the Wind, based on the Scopes Monkey trial in the twenties. Clarence Darrow uses the point that in the Bible, the first seven days do not necessarily mean 24 hours a day. Scientifically it has been proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The first seven days could have been 4.4 billion of those. Who knows? The only contradiction is whether or not humans evolved to what they are today, or did some supreme being create them? The world will never be decided on this issue. Many scientists have proven that evolution does exist, but many people refuse to accept that. Its the same issue that occurred when so many bright thinkers long ago said the earth was round and the church excommunicated them. The church was wrong then. Also the issue of a geocentric universe vs. heliocentric universe. Church was wrong then too. I'm not saying the church is wrong now, but I am saying that anything is possible when it comes to evolution.

Ed said...

Most sane observers would agree that the process of evolution exists, but that whether modern man evolved all the way from a "non-living" collection of molecules remains in question. As a Christian, I don't think creationism and evolution are necessarily exclusive of one another. Nor do the possible answers to that question inhibit my belief system in the least. It's entirely possible that, like Kevin said, an intelligent designer directed man's evolvement using the laws of biology and physics that we understand today.

The point is that nobody knows for sure and neither can be proved or disproved. It all comes down to where on the continuum you choose to fall.

Kevin said...

I agree Ed. Well said.

Bobby T said...

Evolution has to be accurate, to some extent. I am a Christian and do believe that God created man. I also believe that man has evolved over time and place of life. The Indians, when found (by European discoverers) on this continent had "red" skin. This pigmentation had to happen to allow them to live out in the sun all day - very similar to the "redneck" one sees as they peruse the southern states. Middle Eastern folks have a slightly darker skin color than their northern european counterparts, again seemingly due to temperature and sun exposure. Greeks and Italians have darker skin than the British, again resulting from a necessary adjust to climate and temperate conditions. As one reads, it appears that less and less scientists are backing the " one cell-to-human" evolution theory anymore, and more are adopting a similar offering as described above. I am not a scientist and have probably misrepresented some things, but these errors are not to be taken as an attack, just as someone not totally clued in to the scientific terms and roles.

Kevin said...

You have the right idea about it Bobby T. Although I think a redneck would be considered a regression in the human genome, still the human history has been traced genetically to a single tribe in Africa, called the African Bushmen. What is really cool about this is that the Bushmen are still around. They all look pretty much the same, except you can see a different race in each and every one of them. Its pretty neat stuff.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as genetic regression, there is simply change. Besides the southern white man has not had his skin genetically chage color, they simply are out in the sun more. That and there has and always will be people of all colors having sex. To say that it is regression for one group's skinn to grow darker is fairly racist.

Anonymous said...

Bobby T, most evolutionary biologists are fairly certain that life did arise from single celled organisms.

Kein said...

Anon@12:46
That was a joke at how most rednecks are poorly educated and do nothing to contribute to society. They more or less bring down society, hence the regression.

Ed said...

@anon12:46,

There is no such thing as genetic regression

Then how do you explain Flavor Flav?

Kevin said...

He is an unexplained mutation from genetic engineering. Hes kind of an accident.

Ed said...

@anon12:46

Bobby T, most evolutionary biologists are fairly certain that life did arise from single celled organisms.

Evolutionary biologists are certain because they wouldn't be "evolutionary" biologists if they weren't.

Anon, that reasoning fails to meet the minimum requirements to be called "evidence". That's like saying a heroin addict's belief in the legalization of heroin is evidence that it should be legalized.

Kevin said...

Haha wow, if I didnt know what you were talking about Ed, that wouldn't have made any sense. Well said. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

Ed the rest of the world takes evolutionary biologists seriously.