Woodpecker micro evolution: does it support nauralism or creationism?

Question

Woodpeckers have very long tounges perhaps 10 inches long, often with barbs at the ends for stabbing insects, they often use a glue for the toung to help pullin the insects and a glue sovent in the stomach to unglue the tasty treat and digest it.

Problem... some woddpeckers have tounges that stick out like us form the mouth, and the european woodpecker has a tounge that starts in the throat and wrapps around the back of the head, down the beak and out....

how did it micro evolve
1) created with the tounge wrapped around and micro evolved to have some woodpeckers today with ordingary tounges sticking out
2) naturalist evolution, tounges started as other birds and then went backwards wrapping around th ehead and down the beak and out... and how would a series of gradual changes explain this?

http://www.hiltonpond.org/ThisWeek030308.html

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution I by Job Martin

the nature of the radicle change would be the tounge wrapping aound the back of the head down the beak and out, in the case of the european woodpecker... but not the case in many woodpeckers which have touges that stick straight out, not wrapping around the head

Answer 1

I've read about that before, now they compared that structure connected to the tongue (which isn't the tongue actually) and that is in most (if not all) bird with different levels of developments. Whether you find it plausible or not, there's already several researches about the issue, the very particularly tongue issue, that you should read and decide by yourself, hearsay won't clarify any doubt.

You can do two things: accept by mere faith that everything was created by god and stop wondering (and researching) how things work or look for what others have researched about the particular anatomical issue and what they've found. I think "evolutionists" didn't have much of a problem with the woodpecker tongue argument used by some creationists to support their beliefs.

EDIT:
I did a quick search on the net and found the following links, of course it's internet information and you have to validate the sources, just because it's in the net doesn't mean it's true (this applies to creationist sites as well):

Answer 2

Well, I tried to find specific info, but got lost in a hellish search, so am giving up.

What I do know is that your problem is likely with "a series of gradual changes" -- that is, a tiny change in a gene may lead to something that doesn't LOOK gradual to the observer of the resulting creature.

"Some regions of DNA control other genes, determining when and where other genes are turned "on". Mutations in these parts of the genome can substantially change the way the organism is built. The difference between a mutation to a control gene and a mutation to a less powerful gene is a bit like the difference between whispering an instruction to the trumpet player in an orchestra versus whispering it to the orchestra's conductor. The impact of changing the conductor's behavior is much bigger and more coordinated than changing the behavior of an individual orchestra member. Similarly, a mutation in a gene "conductor" can cause a cascade of effects in the behavior of genes under its control."

The biggest difficulty in understanding evolution is TIME -- we, who think in terms of "a really bad week" have a hard time really understanding processes that take millions of years.

If you were interested in actually understanding evolution, UC Berkeley has a huge website on the subject.

Answer 3

Don't know.