[csivils]

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.

[BroJoeK]

csivils: "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."

Well, first of all, you'll need to quote precisely what I posted in order to support your claim that I somehow "got it wrong".

Second, I see nothing at all "circular" about predicting the fossil record does, in fact, show ancient giraffe-like creatures with shorter necks.
Indeed there's nothing "circular" about noticing that the giraffe's closest living relatives, Okapies, have no need for longer necks because they live in wet-jungles with lots of lower-level vegetation.

Giraffe vs. Okapi habitat:

Given such facts, it would be disingenuous to suggest that giraffe necks have nothing to do with reaching leaves high up in trees.

csivils: "The 'right' answer, but not valid math.
Just like your explanation regarding neck length is not valid science."

No, nothing "invalid" about what I've posted here.
But if you wish to quote something I've posted exactly, then I'll explain to you why you misunderstand the basic science involved.