https://phys.org/news/2025-01-cavity-birds-cleverly-snake-skin.html

"When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.

"Researchers combined new and historical data to show birds that nest in cavities—covered nests with small openings—are more likely to use shed snake skins in their construction than birds that build open-cup nests, and this practice helps deter predators from eating the eggs.

***

"Birdwatchers have documented the use of snake skins in nests for centuries and speculated that it occurs more in cavity nests, but no one had tested this theory, said Rohwer, who is also a curator at the Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates, housed at the Lab of Ornithology.

"'We were trying to address why birds are investing all this time and effort in finding this bizarre material," he said.

***

"'The proportion of nests that had snake skin in the nest description was about 6.5 times higher in cavity nests compared to open cup nesters," Rohwer said. "So that was really, really neat, and that suggested to us that we have these two totally independent lines of data that are telling a very similar story."

"To test what benefit cavity-nesting birds might be getting out of the snake skin, the researchers explored if snake skin could reduce nest predation, reduce harmful nest ectoparasites, change microbial communities in ways that benefit birds or function as a signal of parental quality and increase the effort parents make in raising their young. Of these ideas, their results supported the nest predation hypothesis, but only in cavity nests.

***

"'If you were in one of those nest boxes and you had snake skin, you had a much higher chance of surviving that 14-day period," Rohwer said. "The benefits of the material are most strongly expressed in cavity nests.'"

Comment: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-groups-weaver-birds-distinct-styles.html

"A team of biologists in the U.K. and Canada has found that at least one type of bird has its own distinct nest building style. In their study, published in the journal Science, the group conducted a two-year study of nest-building by sparrow weavers in the Kalahari Desert.

"Prior research has shown that different bird species and groups have their own unique singing styles—some also have their own migration and foraging styles, as well. In this new effort, the research team has found that at least one type of bird has groups with their own unique nesting strategies.

"The work involved studying white-browed sparrow weavers for two years, watching and taping them as they built their nests and measuring the results. They chose the species because the birds are known to build multiple single-occupancy nests, all from grass, throughout a given year, providing a lot of observational opportunities.

"The birds are also known to be a social species—they help each other build their nests together in roosts. The researchers observed up to eight birds working together to build a single nest. In all, the team watched as 43 groups built almost 450 nests. They noted that the groups lived in the same general area and had similar habitat conditions and genetics.

"In studying the nests, the researchers found patterns among groups—some built short and thick nests, for example, while others built their nests with long, elaborate entrances and exit tunnels.

"The differences were seen in subsequent nests built over time by birds in the same groups, demonstrating that the style differences were not due to chance. The researchers also found no evidence of natural variables such as wind or temperature variation that could account for the differences.

"The research team suggests that at least some of the differences in nest-building were passed down across generations, demonstrating transmission behavior that was not genetic in nature."

Comment: this demonstrates that weaverbirds can create variations on programmed DNA instincts. The researchers obviously believe as I do, the nest building follows DNA programs.

dhw: In other words, watching with interest – as you once put it. Yes indeed, your God (if he exists) might deliberately have created a mechanism that would enable living organisms and life’s history to evolve autonomously. Fits in perfectly with what facts we have.

DAVID: It sounds like deism. It does fit the facts if you limit your thinking.

dhw: Either it fits the facts or it doesn’t. All our thinking is limited, but we continue to look for explanations that fit the facts we have. Another theistic explanation I’ve heard is that God taught the weaverbird to tie its knots so that nature would be balanced so that life could go on until God could fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. What do you think of that one?

I like it and it is not deism.

DAVID: It sounds like deism. It does fit the facts if you limit your thinking.

Either it fits the facts or it doesn’t. All our thinking is limited, but we continue to look for explanations that fit the facts we have. Another theistic explanation I’ve heard is that God taught the weaverbird to tie its knots so that nature would be balanced so that life could go on until God could fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. What do you think of that one?

QUOTE: [Mormons] believe in “eternal progression,” for example, and that the universe was organized from pre-existing matter.

So unlike Hawking, they believe in a before – and how interesting that they talk of pre-existing matter. Not just your own concept of “pure energy”.

QUOTES: "Organisms change their environment, and the environment changes them — it is a case of “constant complexity.”
"Paraphrasing French philosopher Henri Bergson, the BYU biologist said there is no end goal in evolution.
“'There’s no direction in evolution; it is not trying to get somewhere,” Peck said. “The universe is making itself up as it goes along.”

DAVID'S comment: He makes it sound as if God is not in charge and is simply along for the ride.

dhw: In other words, watching with interest – as you once put it. Yes indeed, your God (if he exists) might deliberately have created a mechanism that would enable living organisms and life’s history to evolve autonomously. Fits in perfectly with what facts we have.

It sounds like deism. It does fit the facts if you limit your thinking.

So unlike Hawking, they believe in a before – and how interesting that they talk of pre-existing matter. Not just your own concept of “pure energy”.

QUOTES: "Organisms change their environment, and the environment changes them — it is a case of “constant complexity.”
"Paraphrasing French philosopher Henri Bergson, the BYU biologist said there is no end goal in evolution.
“'There’s no direction in evolution; it is not trying to get somewhere,” Peck said. “The universe is making itself up as it goes along.”

DAVID'S comment: He makes it sound as if God is not in charge and is simply along for the ride.

In other words, watching with interest – as you once put it. Yes indeed, your God (if he exists) might deliberately have created a mechanism that would enable living organisms and life’s history to evolve autonomously. Fits in perfectly with what facts we have.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02/24/mormons-need-not-shy-away-from-evolution-say...

"Mormons should be as friendly to evolution as any people on Earth, a Brigham Young University biologist unequivocally declared this week.

"They believe in “eternal progression,” for example, and that the universe was organized from pre-existing matter, Steven L. Peck told a packed audience Thursday on the Utah Valley University campus. Those are ideas embraced by evolutionary biologists, too.

***

"The relationship between science and religion has been among the most fiercely debated issues since the Copernican Revolution displaced traditional wisdom regarding the nature of the cosmos,” program director Brian Birch said in his opening remarks. “Some have argued for a sharp division of labor while others have sought to harmonize spiritual and empirical truths.”

"That’s equally true of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"A Pew Forum poll from a decade ago show that 21 percent of Latter-day Saints agreed with the statement that “evolution is the best explanation for life on Earth.” In 2014, however, another Pew survey found nearly 50 percent believed in some form of evolution.

"The Utah-based faith takes no official stand on the question, and it has been taught at LDS Church-owned BYU for decades.

“'Mormonism has wrestled with the implications of modern science,” Birch said Thursday, “and has produced a variety of theological responses.”

***

“'Evolution is a struggle for existence. It is messy and complex.”

"The whole universe is “rather violent,” Peck said. “Our own star began with an explosion.”

"Biologists also teach that it is filled with matter, which Mormon founder Joseph Smith preached in the 1840s.

"There certainly are surprises in the development of complex structures, he said. “Things that occur on one level — like DNA mutations — are truly random. And they can bubble up to the macro world.”

"In response, life “organizes networks to manage this universe,” he said. “There is genuine novelty in this process. We see surprises being mothered into the universe. … We see it everywhere — rocks, strata and developmental processes.”

"Complexity is in the fossil record and in human cells, Peck said. “And development is not the simple story we used to think it was.”

"Organisms change their environment, and the environment changes them — it is a case of “constant complexity.”

"Biologists also see a pattern of symbiotic relationships all around.

"Paraphrasing French philosopher Henri Bergson, the BYU biologist said there is no end goal in evolution.

“'There’s no direction in evolution; it is not trying to get somewhere,” Peck said. “The universe is making itself up as it goes along.”

"But Bergson insisted God would have to be embedded in matter.

“'God is nothing,” Peck quoted Bergson as saying, “if conceived of as external to or separate from this course of events.”

"Mormons would definitely agree.

“'A plan of no agency would require a deterministic universe, where God sits above time and broods over an endless loop where nothing new ever occurs,” he said. “Like a ‘Gilligan’s Island’ rerun on loop forever.” (my bold)

"As a scientist, Peck said, he was struck by “a universe brimming with dynamic flows of energy and material, a universe of objects, hills and processes that advances with ebbs and flows, with randomness, chaos and order.”

"It is an open universe, he said, where God lives, too.

"The struggle for existence is paramount but should not lead humans into despair, Peck said, because they are “joined in a confederation of love … in relationship with each other and with God.'”

Comment: He makes it sound as if God is not in charge and is simply along for the ride. A personal story from his life fits this.

Dhw: There is no such thing as “constant balance”. The balance is always changing, as species come and go.

DAVID: But my point is balance is always there as it changes supplying energy for evolution to continue.

dhw: I don’t know why you insist on using the word “balance” in this context. Life needs energy, and the changing supplies of energy go hand in hand with the changing balance of nature as some species come and some species go. And although you refer to it every time I ask you why God designed the weaverbird’s nest, it tells us absolutely nothing about God’s purpose being to produce humans and designing every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to relate to that purpose, which is the subject we are discussing. There is no disagreement between us over the fact that life needs energy, and evolution cannot take place unless there is life!

Humans arrived over billions of years. The vast bush of life supplies the energy. you agree to that. That is the relationship.

dhw: Final decisions do not lead to fluidity. Two of your thoughts are not fluid at all: 1) humans were your God’s only purpose, and 2) your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, all of which were related to that purpose. Your fluidity comes into play when you try to find an explanation for the dichotomy and can’t.

DAVID: Again, no dichotomy. Main point, God's goal is to create humans.

dhw: No fluidity here.

Of course. Humans are a goal. Life styles and natural wonders supply energy so evolution can reach the goal of humans. No dichotomy except in your way of looking at things.

DAVID: Time to do it is a human concept, not God's. He is timeless. Limitations or not are human thinking, not God's. Is He limited, probably not, but it remains a possibility. Is He all-powerful. More probable. Can I be absolutely positive about either thought? No.

dhw: We cannot know your God’s mind, so how with your human thinking can you be absolutely positive that God’s sole purpose was to create humans and he designed everything to relate to that purpose?

I am certainly allowed to reach that conclusion.

DAVID: As for experimentation, all of the intricate examples of complexity in the genome and biologic functions reprised yesterday deny that possibility. They all strongly suggest immediate saltation of immediately active processes, nothing stepwise as would be the case with experimentation.

dhw: You seem to have missed the point of my “experimentation” hypothesis, which is the only explanation I can find to remove the dichotomy between your two basic precepts. Nothing to do with the complexity of the genome! Your God starts out wanting to produce beings like himself. He does not have a blueprint. He designs all kinds of beings, but they are not close enough to the image of himself, and so he continues to experiment.

Neat just-so story. God designed a complex evolving universe which allows life, based on quantum mechanics. If He can do that He knew in advance how to make humans.

dhw: You have rejected it because “any power that can produce a fine-tuned universe can then see to the creation of humans without difficulty.”

Exactly.

dhw: This leaves you with no explanation for the dichotomy except your dogmatic insistence that God did it your way and you don’t know why.

I don't see a dichotomy. It all fits together.

DAVID: ….But currently it depends on what 'clear' means. My interpretation of the word is not yours. I see nothing that is 'clearly' correct. Possible explanations, yes, clear, no.

dhw: However, I would suggest to you that any explanation we can understand has a better chance of being correct than no explanation at all, which is the situation you are faced with when the combination of your two hypotheses does not make sense even to you.

It does make sense to me. Humans are the goal and balance of nature supplies the energy to take the time to do it.

xxxx

dhw: By “very close together”, I thought you meant he [Tony] shared your ideas on God’s purposes, methods and nature – i.e. the subject under discussion.

DAVID: I respect Tony's beliefs, but cannot accept most of his theology for me. We share a belief in a powerful God and His abilities to create life through evolution.

dhw: Tony doesn’t even believe in evolution.

My interpretation of Tony is that God arranged for all species appearing over time. Perhaps tony will clarify.

dhw: And although you refer to it every time I ask you why God designed the weaverbird’s nest, it tells us absolutely nothing about God’s purpose being to produce humans and designing every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to relate to that purpose, which is the subject we are discussing. There is no disagreement between us over the fact that life needs energy, and evolution cannot take place unless there is life!

I do it because you keep equating bird's nests with the purpose of producing humans. The only connection, which you well know, is that human took a long time to appear and as Tony observes constant energy was needed to get there.

DAVID: You know my reasoning: balance of nature to supply life's energy for evolution to proceed for millions of years. As for the nest, please note Tony's entry today. God's behavioral instructions.

dhw: The complicated knots are not behavioural, but in any case the question is whether God designed the "variant" himself, or the weaverbird designed it. Balance of nature means life continues, whether there are humans or not. Nothing to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of humans and everything else being related to that. See “God and evolution”.

DAVID: You always skip the nuanced part of the balance argument: constant balance means evolution can take a long time with a source of energy always present, even during extinctions.

DHW:There is no such thing as “constant balance”. The balance is always changing, as species come and go. Evolution is the process by which different forms of life develop, and it will continue as long as there is life and time. Yet again, as you keep agreeing, the continuousness does not in any way support your dogmatic insistence that God’s only purpose was to create humans and that everything else (including the weaverbird’s nest) was related to that purpose! Life (and evolution) has gone on and will go on, with or without humans, until it ends, and it will take as long as it takes!

Balance does not mean or imply stasis. It is not a static thing. Of course things are changing. It's like a top or a tight rope walker. They are constantly in motion, making constant tiny corrections, but the end result is balance.

DAVID: Note Tony's reply. Yes Tony and I disagree about the centrality of humans. We are allowed to.

DHW: Of course you are. I am only pointing out that Tony disagrees with one of your two central dogmas, and we still don’t know how far he supports the other one, so you can hardly claim to be “very close together”.

What is the other part of his central dogma that you don't know my position on?

DAVID (under “Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified”): I have explained that my comments are at the moment remarks and responses to your questions. Remember they are not set in stone as I've stated. I am ruminating out in public. You then pick up an at-the-moment thought and stick with it in responding to me. I don't settle on one thought or approach. My thoughts remain fluid. I'm trying to understand the history as much as you are. You have not allowed yourself to make choices among the possible final decisions about what to believe.

Final decisions do not lead to fluidity. Two of your thoughts are not fluid at all: 1) humans were your God’s only purpose, and 2) your God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, all of which were related to that purpose. Your fluidity comes into play when you try to find an explanation for the dichotomy and can’t.

DAVID: Again, no dichotomy. Main point, God's goal is to create humans.

No fluidity here.

DAVID: Time to do it is a human concept, not God's. He is timeless. Limitations or not are human thinking, not God's. Is He limited, probably not, but it remains a possibility. Is He all-powerful. More probable. Can I be absolutely positive about either thought? No.

We cannot know your God’s mind, so how with your human thinking can you be absolutely positive that God’s sole purpose was to create humans and he designed everything to relate to that purpose?

DAVID: As for experimentation, all of the intricate examples of complexity in the genome and biologic functions reprised yesterday deny that possibility. They all strongly suggest immediate saltation of immediately active processes, nothing stepwise as would be the case with experimentation.

You seem to have missed the point of my “experimentation” hypothesis, which is the only explanation I can find to remove the dichotomy between your two basic precepts. Nothing to do with the complexity of the genome! Your God starts out wanting to produce beings like himself. He does not have a blueprint. He designs all kinds of beings, but they are not close enough to the image of himself, and so he continues to experiment. In due course he hits on the right formula: a biped mammal with an extra tweak here and there to its brain. All of this fits in with your two rigid tenets. You have rejected it because “any power that can produce a fine-tuned universe can then see to the creation of humans without difficulty.” This leaves you with no explanation for the dichotomy except your dogmatic insistence that God did it your way and you don’t know why. (Of course I "pick up" on your arguments - how else can a discussion proceed?)

DAVID: If you agree not carved in stone, then I can ruminate about possibilities, since that is all they are. Clear explanations do not exist.
dhw: Clear explanations certainly do exist, but that does not mean they are right. I have offered you three clear explanations that do away with the dichotomy between your two hypotheses, but those do seem to be carved in stone (“I won’t leave my beliefs just as you stay on your fence”). ..
DAVID: ….But currently it depends on what 'clear' means. My interpretation of the word is not yours. I see nothing that is 'clearly' correct. Possible explanations, yes, clear, no.

Please read what I wrote. “Clear explanations certainly do exist, but that does not mean they are right.” Right means correct, and I did not say they were clearly correct. Three different explanations can’t all be correct! A clear explanation means one that is easy to understand, so what don’t you understand about the experimentation hypothesis above, or the hypothesis that God wanted a spectacle for himself and so designed a mechanism to produce all sorts of life forms, including humans? You even agree that this explanation fits in with the history of life as we know it. It could hardly be clearer, but of course it’s not “clearly correct”. If it were, we would regard it as a fact, not a hypothesis. However, I would suggest to you that any explanation we can understand has a better chance of being correct than no explanation at all, which is the situation you are faced with when the combination of your two hypotheses does not make sense even to you.

xxxx

dhw: By “very close together”, I thought you meant he [Tony] shared your ideas on God’s purposes, methods and nature – i.e. the subject under discussion.

DAVID: I respect Tony's beliefs, but cannot accept most of his theology for me. We share a belief in a powerful God and His abilities to create life through evolution.

Tony doesn’t even believe in evolution.

DAVID: But my point is balance is always there as it changes supplying energy for evolution to continue.

I don’t know why you insist on using the word “balance” in this context. Life needs energy, and the changing supplies of energy go hand in hand with the changing balance of nature as some species come and some species go. And although you refer to it every time I ask you why God designed the weaverbird’s nest, it tells us absolutely nothing about God’s purpose being to produce humans and designing every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to relate to that purpose, which is the subject we are discussing. There is no disagreement between us over the fact that life needs energy, and evolution cannot take place unless there is life!

DAVID: If you agree not carved in stone, then I can ruminate about possibilities, since that is all they are. Clear explanations do not exist.

dhw: Clear explanations certainly do exist, but that does not mean they are right. I have offered you three clear explanations that do away with the dichotomy between your two hypotheses, but those do seem to be carved in stone (“I won’t leave my beliefs just as you stay on your fence”). However,“ruminating about possibilities” is the whole purpose of this forum, and that applies to all subjects, including the existence, purpose and nature of God. There would be no need for any discussion at all if the facts were known. And so we shall, I hope, go on ruminating together!

Yes, continue ruminating. But currently it depends on what 'clear' means. My interpretation of the word is not yours. I see nothing that is 'clearly' correct. Possible explanations, yes, clear, no.

xxxx

dhw: I am only pointing out that Tony disagrees with one of your two central dogmas, and we still don’t know how far he supports the other one, so you can hardly claim to be “very close together”.

DAVID: Tony and I come from different religions, but we both believe God is in charge.

dhw: Most theists do. By “very close together”, I thought you meant he shared your ideas on God’s purposes, methods and nature – i.e. the subject under discussion.

I respect Tony's beliefs, but cannot accept most of his theology for me. We share a belief in a powerful God and His abilities to create life through evolution.

DAVID: You always skip the nuanced part of the balance argument: constant balance means evolution can take a long time with a source of energy always present, even during extinctions.

dhw:There is no such thing as “constant balance”. The balance is always changing, as species come and go.

But my point is balance is always there as it changes supplying energy for evolution to continue.

Clear explanations certainly do exist, but that does not mean they are right. I have offered you three clear explanations that do away with the dichotomy between your two hypotheses, but those do seem to be carved in stone (“I won’t leave my beliefs just as you stay on your fence”). However,“ruminating about possibilities” is the whole purpose of this forum, and that applies to all subjects, including the existence, purpose and nature of God. There would be no need for any discussion at all if the facts were known. And so we shall, I hope, go on ruminating together!

xxxx

dhw: I am only pointing out that Tony disagrees with one of your two central dogmas, and we still don’t know how far he supports the other one, so you can hardly claim to be “very close together”.

DAVID: Tony and I come from different religions, but we both believe God is in charge.

Most theists do. By “very close together”, I thought you meant he shared your ideas on God’s purposes, methods and nature – i.e. the subject under discussion.

dhw: The complicated knots are not behavioural, but in any case the question is whether God designed the "variant" himself, or the weaverbird designed it. Balance of nature means life continues, whether there are humans or not. Nothing to do with God’s sole purpose being the production of humans and everything else being related to that. See “God and evolution”.

DAVID: You always skip the nuanced part of the balance argument: constant balance means evolution can take a long time with a source of energy always present, even during extinctions.

There is no such thing as “constant balance”. The balance is always changing, as species come and go. Evolution is the process by which different forms of life develop, and it will continue as long as there is life and time. Yet again, as you keep agreeing, the continuousness does not in any way support your dogmatic insistence that God’s only purpose was to create humans and that everything else (including the weaverbird’s nest) was related to that purpose! Life (and evolution) has gone on and will go on, with or without humans, until it ends, and it will take as long as it takes!

DAVID: I know it was my idea. In these discussions I ruminate about possibilities and we explore them. 'Limits' and 'delay' are ideas we explored, not carved in stone.

dhw: Of course they are not carved in stone. You thought of ‘delay’ and limitations as a means of explaining the dichotomy between your two dogmas: humans were God’s sole purpose, and only God could have designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder. I offered you a bridge for that gap (experimentation) which you rejected. It seems that now you are rejecting your whole delay/limitations hypothesis in favour of “it doesn’t make sense to me either”, which = you don’t have a “clear explanation”.

If you agree not carved in stone, then I can ruminate about possibilities, since that is all they are. Clear explanations do not exist.

dhw:The alternative to the unbridgeable gap is to remove one of the two dogmas that have created it: 1) the production of humans was NOT your God’s only purpose. 2) God did NOT personally design the nest, the lifestyle, the compound eye. Aren’t these possibilities worth considering, instead of merely claiming that God did it your way but you can’t find a “clear explanation”?
DAVID: Explanation given above, the same as usual.

So your God specially designed the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and the fly’s compound eye in order to keep life going until he was ready to produce humans? It didn’t make sense to you before, and that is why you came up with your delay-because-of-limitations hypothesis, which you now appear to be turning against. That leaves you, according to yourself, with “no clear explanation”, but you still refuse to consider the possibility that one or both of your two basic premises might be wrong.

I won't leave my beliefs just as you stay on your fence.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DAVID: Tony and I are very close together.

TONY: Humans, as the prime goal of all creation, or even of evolution, is truly just silliness, even according to science which claims everything is still evolving. If that were true, we must be in one of those periods of punctuated equilibrium. (my bold)

dhw: Tony will have to tell us himself how, if he agrees with you, your God’s personal design of the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle and the fly’s compound eye constituted preparation for his "sole goal", the production of humans.

DAVID: Note Tony's reply. Yes Tony and I disagree about the centrality of humans. We are allowed to.

dhw: Of course you are. I am only pointing out that Tony disagrees with one of your two central dogmas, and we still don’t know how far he supports the other one, so you can hardly claim to be “very close together”.

Tony and I come from different religions, but we both believe God is in charge.