Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

First, you're not going to lure me from my arguments about irreducible complexity.Not even if I hold out a piece of cheese?YOU have yet to explain how, in any biological system, the first stages of development, as required by evolutionary theory, can lead to more advanced structures in the body.Now you're just trying to shift the blame. I am not going to explain evolutionary theory (which is an explanation of exactly what you speak of), as I presume you took the time to understand it before you sought to contradict it.why would it have had the unique cartilage in its head if it didn't need a shock absorber, assuming that it did not initially use trees as a source of food? That is simply useless speculation. There are many reasons for an animal to have extra protection for its brain. As I have said twice now, birds are the descendants of dinosaurs, of which several species exhibited exactly the same cranial cartilage you speak of. I don't mean to spout meaningless conjecture, but perhaps woodpeckers are descended from a species which did not fly and did have a use for the extra cartilage?And you seem to misunderstand the implications of natural selection. As I have demonstrated, useless features are generally not bred out unless they are detrimental to an organism's survival. Case example: the human appendix. Or perhaps the cartilage developed after the bird's beak did? Or developed simultaneously with the refinement of the beak from an originally wider shape? Perhaps the repetitive pecking mechanism was adopted after the birds began to seek food under the bark of trees?There are many plausible explanations, none of which are really necessary, as evolution can be directly observed in blue-bottle flies, rats and viruses.Your answer, the pseudoscientific irreducible complexity argument, is a brain dead solution which requires no real thought. You encounter a difficulty to which the correct answer is not immediately apparent, and instead of considering the dilemma properly, you simply take it as an indication that the observable phenomenon of evolution is a misunderstanding. The woodpecker could have existed this way from the beginning, or it didn't, and rather started to develope each feature because of a sudden need to feed from trees, despite the fact that this would have taken an extremely long period and consequently would not have satisfied the woodpecker's new requirement. The fundamental difference between these two scenarios, which are both conjecture, is that the latter is more harmonious with modern scientific understanding. Your argument against evolution focuses of a relatively easy to solve problem, and totally ignores the overwhelming evidence supporting a theory which has taken over a century to develop.  Because they are superfluous, the features would be bred out in subsequent generations.That's just a misunderstanding, as I have already demonstrated. And for goodness' sake, answer some of my points. All you have done is reiterate your own pathetic argument.I am simplifying this as much as possible, but it is clear that despite the overwhelming logic that I am using.What is clear?