Changes

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here.  It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right?  Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks.  Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes.  They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they?  Question one:  just what are these giraffes going to do?  Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves?  Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year?  Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?''  Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway.  It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks.  And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here.  It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right?  Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks.  Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes.  They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they?  Question one:  just what are these giraffes going to do?  Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves?  Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year?  Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?''  Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway.  It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks.  And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution.

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.