***None of your sites claim valves are in the artery. They either claim “blood vessels” or “jugular vein.” There are no valves in the artery of the giraffe.***
Excuse me, Moonman.... I should have said “blood vessels”. Would you like to address the rest of the post?
schaef21: "Excuse me, Moonman.... I should have said 'blood vessels'... "
A rare moment of humility, which we should pause and take note of, because, among other things it illustrates that much, if not most, of this debate involves different definitions of various terms.
To unpackage all these definitions, we have to start at the beginning, the Big Alpha.
If you believe in God (which about 92% do), even as deistically as some of our Founders, then you believe God created the Universe in such a way as to be highly friendly to life on Earth.
In that sense you believe in Intelligent Design, period.
So stop denying it, you believe it, you know you do.
On the other hand, every anti-evolutionist admits to the truth of what they call, "micro-evolution", or "adaption", or something else -- anything but the dreaded word.
In that sense you believe in Darwinian evolution, period.
So stop denying it, you believe it, you know you do.
Indeed, all pro-evolution believers agree that mankind is God's purpose in creating Earth and it's life -- purpose driven evolution.
And all anti-evolutionists admit the random nature of short-term "adaption" mutations.
Indeed, anti-evolutionists confess that short-term adaptions are not just scientific "theory", but confirmed, repeatable, scientifically verifiable fact.
So, what exactly is the basic problem?
Well, there are two -- science and religion -- so let's begin from the scientific perspective:
First and most important is the definition of the word "natural science", summarized: Natural explanations for natural processes.
Meaning, if you see a natural explanation for a natural process, then it can be considered scientific.
It might be an unverified hypothesis, might even be "junk science", but if it meets the criteria, it's still "science".
So for all who claim that evolution theory is not science because, you say, "it's not repeatable": it's still recognized as science.
On the other hand, if you propose a super-natural explanation, then that is not science, it's theology, or your religion.
Of course, the Universe must begin and end in theology -- the Big Alpha and Omega, but where does theology stop and natural science begin?
The truth is, nobody -- I mean no human being -- knows for sure.
God certainly knows, but He obviously enjoys watching us scratch our heads over it.
My view is that an omniscient and omnipotent God would likely create a Universe which from the first instant was set to allow: physics to become chemistry, chemistry to become biology and biology to grow into organisms.
But I'm not dogmatic on the point -- so if it's found that certain, ah... miracles were required along the way, well, that's fine with me.
But remember, that "miracle" is a theological/religious term, not scientific.
Regardless of how miraculous any event may appear to us mortal humans, science by definition can only examine, and attempt to explain, the natural aspects of it.
Natural science, as such, literally cannot see a miracle, even if it's slapping them in the face.
But spiritual human beings can, and do, and some of those even hold day-jobs as scientists.
So, what are we to make of this listing of ten alleged "problems" with evolution?
First, it's grossly oversimplified -- there are not just ten "problems", there are an infinity of "problems" which science cannot yet answer, plus a large number of answers which will doubtless need revision, sometime in the future.
Indeed, these illustrate that what we think we "know" today is surely less than 1% of what's out there to be known.
So science makes no pretense of answering every possible question, only those questions for which there is some physical evidence.
Second, as described by Eugenie Scott, in the article's first sentence: basic evolution remains unchallenged, as either theory or fact -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, certainly in the short-term.
Longer-term, it's obvious the pattern is more complex, involving such ideas as "horizontal gene transfers" (read: interbreeding) and, who knows, perhaps visiting aliens, who spat in a pond and out crawls, millions of years later, little fishies.
And that would still be a scientific hypothesis, except that now you'd have to explain where those "aliens" came from.
But, as soon as you say, "God did it", that's a super-natural explanation.
Doesn't mean it's not true. In a sense, of course it's true.
But it's not natural-science.