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.
I have seen videos of giraffes fighting with their necks. Based on that one fact I could conclude that longer necks gave some males an advantage while other males adopted other fighting techniques.
See... an equally meaningless piece of drivel based off of taking random facts and drawing conclusions based on an analysis that assumes there are no other factors and starts with the results rather than the inputs.
How do you know that Okapies necks are a result of where they live rather than they live where they do as a result of their neck? Take your answer and then explain to me how the subdivision that you live in determines your paycheck...
The fact you don’t see it is circular is a short coming on your part, not a misunderstanding on my part.