****No it doesn’t, not in the least. There’s no reason at all why these features couldn’t have developed, little by little, over time, in the millions of years during which fossils show “proto-giraffs” were relatively small.****
Another way of saying the above is.....”I can’t see the forest because all of these trees are in the way.”
The giraffe couldn’t have evolved those four parts over time, they all had to be there together. If even one was missing he’d have died off before he could have evolved further.
Your inability to process logic baffles me.
****But here’s what seem most important to me: your argument is to reject all of the physical evidence,****
What physical evidence? You mean bones? Who observed that again?
****and ask me instead to believe your non-evidence.****
And what was my non-evidence? Oh yeah...a description of the morphology of the giraffe that would require four specific parts to be there and functioning at the same time for the species to survive.
****Sorry, pal, but that just makes no sense.****
From the movie “Bull Durham”...Crash Davis speaking to Annie Savoy.....”Talkin’ to you is like talkin’ to a fungo”
I now know how Crash felt.
So you and the ID-Creationists claim. And your scientific research, results and "proof" to verify that is what, when, where and by whom? Have you considered the real scientific research of others with different results?
Your whole suggestion seems ludicrous to me, on the face of it. Since the fossil record shows smaller deer-like proto-giraffs going back 50 million years, and a sudden growth-spurt only in the last million years, it seems super-obvious to me that giraffes remained at a smaller size until all necessary physical features had evolved to allow them to reach higher tree branches.
So you have not actually made an argument here, but you did insult me -- becoming more and more YHAOS-like, I see. Let's see, is that micro- or macro-evolution? I suspect macro, since YHAOS seems to me a different "kind" of critter! ;-)