Replies

SampleMan on giraffes: "All we know for certain is that it is outnumbered by shorter necked ruminants and that it has managed to survive with a long neck.
So why from that would anyone conclude that having a long neck gave it competitive advantage?"

Actually, we know more than that.
Giraffes and their closest living relatives, okapi, have unique physical characteristics, which are also found in certain fossils.
These fossils tell us there were prehistorically other forms of giraffe.
Some were very long-necked, others not so much.

The shorter necks can easily be seen as "transitional forms" because they demonstrate that while long necks were important for this family, not all needed the super-long necks of today's giraffes.

1) Today's closely related Okapi & Giraffe, 2) extinct Giraffidae called Sivatherium:

csivils post #101: "Short necks evolved due to evolution as did long necks, medium necks, blue necks and red necks.
Given any random fact, some scientist somewhere can explain why it proves evolution."

The correct term is "confirms", but of course, since natural selection limits evolution to forms which work for their ecological niche.
So, for example, the giraffe family, we see bushes & trees at every height, making it unnecessary in every niche for every giraffe-family species to have super-long necks.
Where "long-enough" was good-enough for survival, the necks stopped growing.
That's what evolution theory predicts.

And this is a problem for you, exactly, why?

Where "long-enough" was good-enough for survival, the necks stopped growing...And this is a problem for you, exactly, why?

Presumption of purpose that only exists if the evolution is guided, and non-sequitur presumption that a species that had survived with a shorter neck for the entire period of its evolution, then reached a point of "good-enough". Obviously is was good enough at every single point, even before the neck started extending, and other species eating the same diet in the same habitat never grew longer necks and were "good-enough" and still are.

If anything, the giraffe neck reached a point of extension where they "could't survive any more", which did introduce significant natural selection and restricted the ever growing neck. That long neck comes with some serious handicaps.

The premise that all mutations/evolution have to be positive is illogical. They just can't be so negative that they preclude survival.

Scientists should simply never say, "The animal developed _______ in order to ________." That is the logical equivalent of saying a boy developed great height, so that he could fill the NBA niche. The man plays in the NBA because his height makes him better at it. All other athletic skill being equal, the man would have still been a professional athlete in any number of other sports.

In summary, it is just as logical to presume that animals find niches that best fit their adaptations, as it is to presume that they evolve over tens of millions of years to take advantage of a niche that may or may not still exist when they are finally adapted for it.

Because it is circular reasoning. You start with an observation regarding neck length, look for reasons to justify that observation and then claim it was a prediction when in fact it was not.

It reminds me of a time back in high school when my brother was doing a math homework problem that had the answer in the back of the book. His original answer was off by one, so he went to the top of the page and wrote “+1” on one side of the equation and proceeded to get the right answer.

The “right” answer, but not valid math. Just like your explanation regarding neck length is not valid science.