Doesn't matter. I'm not arguing for ID. I'm arguing that "survival of the fittest" makes no logical sense when considering many traits. It makes great sense when looking at other traits. Thus, it is quite scientific to look for other reasons that animals evolve. My personal opinion is that much evolution occurs simply because certain traits are subject to progressive change, much like our climate. Thus, I would argue that it is just as likely that the Giraffe's neck has a progressive mutation that makes it grow longer independent of any advantage it might give. Survival of the fittest certainly exists in my theory, but as a limit to allowable mutation, not as its driver. This makes a lot more sense to me, than arguing that infinitesimally small changes from generation to generation actually bestowed competitive advantage.
I would also say that this isn't necessarily opposed to Darwin's theory, but according to every Darwinist I've ever come across, it makes me a screaming heretic. I've taken my own conclusions from that.
Go right ahead, you're perfectly in line with biologists on that one. But you go off the rails when you try to attack imaginary biologists which exist only in your own head -- you know, the ones you hallucinate think that "only" selection is at work in evolution.
It makes great sense when looking at other traits. Thus, it is quite scientific to look for other reasons that animals evolve.
And biologists do, and have identified many of those processes. Is there some particular reason you're either a) grossly ignorant of that fact, or b) dishonestly pretending that they haven't and that they say that "only" selective advantage is at play?
My personal opinion is that much evolution occurs simply because certain traits are subject to progressive change, much like our climate.
Welcome to "genetic drift". The biologists are way ahead of you. Kimura described the mechanism in 1968 -- a bit behind on your reading, aren't you?
Thus, I would argue that it is just as likely that the Giraffe's neck has a progressive mutation that makes it grow longer independent of any advantage it might give.
You can argue anything you like, but that doesn't make it "just as likely". In almost every case where a trait with an obvious selective advantage is recognized, DNA or lab or field study has shown that selection is responsible rather than genetic drift. And mathematical analysis of population genetics shows that while genetic drift can be a strong influence on the genetics of small populations, for medium or large populations even a very weak selective advantage produces far greater likeliehood of a trait's fixation than does genetic drift. Furthermore (again due to real-world research as well as mathematical analysis of the processes) genetic drift is highly unlikely to produce extreme results requiring cumulative addition of multiple changes in one "direction" (such as the giraffe's extreme neck size), whereas selection excels at such results.
You'll also have to withhold your assumption of "just as likely" until you can provide sufficient evidence for a non-selective origin for giraffe's long necks at least as strong as the evidence which indicates that selection was involved, as for example in: "Winning by a Neck: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Giraffe", Robert E. Simmons; Lue Scheepers, The American Naturalist / Vol. 148, No. 5 (Nov., 1996), pp. 771-786.
Survival of the fittest certainly exists in my theory,
"Your theory"?
but as a limit to allowable mutation, not as its driver.
...and you deal with the vast amount of evidence and research which contradicts "your theory" how, exactly? Oh, right, by not even being aware of its existence...
This makes a lot more sense to me, than arguing that infinitesimally small changes from generation to generation actually bestowed competitive advantage.
Whether it "makes more sense" to you or not, it flies in the face of a vast amount of existing research, so it "makes no sense" to the people who are actually conversant in this topic.
I would also say that this isn't necessarily opposed to Darwin's theory, but according to every Darwinist I've ever come across, it makes me a screaming heretic.
No, it just makes you an arrogant fool, like those people who think they've dreamed up a way during their lunchbreak to tweak internal combustion engines to get 500 miles per gallon, never mind that they haven't tried it out yet, have no more than an amateur's knowledge of automobile engineering, and absolutely no knowledge of physics in general or thermodynamics in particular. They just keep talking about "my theory of universal energy" etc. while they cackle about what fools those scientists and egineers are for not having seen something "so obvious", blah blah blah.
I've taken my own conclusions from that.
As well you should -- as they say, "if everything seems to be coming your way, maybe you're in the wrong lane". And if everyone laughs at your notions about biology, well...