What is the evolutionairy theory on the Giraffe?

joz:
Which would be fine if you had any evidence for your explanation other than a 2000 year old religious document......John Paul:
Actually all the observed, testable, repeatable and verifiable experimental evidence supports the Creation PoV IMHO. Let's see we have "Variation under domestication", "Variation under nature", "Struggle for existence"- all are evidence for the Creation model of biological evolution. BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old.What is your evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection could give rise to life's observed diversity from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to self-replicate?Where is the biological or genetic evidence that a giraffe could evolve from a short necked ancestor?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old.

​

What is your evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection could give rise to life's observed diversity from one or a few populations of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to self-replicate?

---

I think this really comes down to the whole can small changes (mutations) add up (integrate would probably be a better term) to large changes argument you left hanging about a week or so ago.... so get your arse back over there and finish it....BTW...So the bible was written more than 2000 years ago huh....Lets see Jesus was apparently crucified in the early part of the fourth decade A.D. so any document that mentions this would (until 2030 something) be LESS than 2000 years old.... Just a small point....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-18-2001]

joz:
I think this really comes down to the whole can small changes (mutations) add up (integrate would probably be a better term) to large changes argument you left hanging about a week or so ago.... so get your arse back over there and finish it....John Paul:
So we can go back & forth "can not"/ "can too"? What a waste of time. Show me the biological or genetic evidence...joz:
BTW...So the bible was written more than 2000 years ago huh....Lets see Jesus was apparently crucified in the early part of the fourth decade A.D. so any document that mentions this would (until 2030 something) be LESS than 2000 years old.... Just a small point....John Paul:
ROTFLMAO! Ever hear of the Torah (Old Testament)? Only the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Genesis was written well before Jesus was born. Actually if Jesus died during his 33rd year on Earth he would have died in the third decade AD. He wasn't born in 1 AD or zero or even 1 BC. Herod died in 4 BC and Mary & Joseph were fleeing his decree (kill the babies) when Jesus was born. With that in mind Jesus would have been born in or before 4 BC.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
I think this really comes down to the whole can small changes (mutations) add up (integrate would probably be a better term) to large changes argument you left hanging about a week or so ago.... so get your arse back over there and finish it....

​

John Paul:
So we can go back & forth "can not"/ "can too"? What a waste of time. Show me the biological or genetic evidence...

​

joz:
BTW...So the bible was written more than 2000 years ago huh....

​

Lets see Jesus was apparently crucified in the early part of the fourth decade A.D. so any document that mentions this would (until 2030 something) be LESS than 2000 years old.... Just a small point....

​

John Paul:
ROTFLMAO! Ever hear of the Torah (Old Testament)? Only the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Genesis was written well before Jesus was born. Actually if Jesus died during his 33rd year on Earth he would have died in the third decade AD. He wasn't born in 1 AD or zero or even 1 BC. Herod died in 4 BC and Mary & Joseph were fleeing his decree (kill the babies) when Jesus was born. With that in mind Jesus would have been born in or before 4 BC.

​

---

I wasnt the one who said The Bible (note not the old testament, not parts of the bible) is more than 2000 years old, you were the ages of parts of the bible (torah, or old testament) are immaterial in refuting the claim that the bible was written MORE than 2000 years ago....So it was his 33rd year on earth that moves the older than 2000 years cutoff point to a minimum of 2020 something we are still in 2001 so it isnt older than 2000 years....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-18-2001]

joz:
I wasnt the one who said The Bible (note not the old testament, not parts of the bible) is more than 2000 years old, you were the ages of parts of the bible (torah, or old testament) are immaterial in refuting the claim that the bible was written MORE than 2000 years ago....John Paul:
True, but taken in context Genesis is the part of the Bible that speaks of a Special Creation. That said Genesis is part of the OT, which is more than 2000 years old.This is what transpired joz:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by redstang281:
Wow, so not only would all that have to occur, but also the giraffe would have to be isolated and we would hope that the giraffe baby could nurse milk off the giraffe for a long enough time to grow to reach the tree branches.
This is why the evolution community has given up on that theory of giraffe evolution and has started a new one.Meanwhile the creationists still maintain the giraffe was created a giraffe as God designed him as one of the creatures to help maintain plant grow.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Which would be fine if you had any evidence for your explanation other than a 2000 year old religious document......John Paul:
This implies you are talking about what drives the Creationists' PoV- which is Genesis. And as you have learned, Genesis was written before 1 AD, making it older than 2000 years.joz:
So it was his 33rd year on earth that moves the older than 2000 years cutoff point to a minimum of 2020 something we are still in 2001 so it isnt older than 2000 years....John Paul:
Nice blatant misrepresentation of what I posted. It that all you have? Perhaps you should re-read my post so you will know what I was referring to by posting his age at his death and when he was born.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul: BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old.

---

And I say again I am not the one who said and I quote "BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old."You didn`t say Genesis, you didn`t say the old testament or the Torah you said the bible....

joz:
And I say again I am not the one who said and I quote "BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old."You didn`t say Genesis, you didn`t say the old testament or the Torah you said the bible....John Paul:
And I as have shown you, it is. And as I also pointed out, in the context of what you were talking about- only Genesis applies.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
And I say again I am not the one who said and I quote "BTW, the Bible is more than 2000 years old."

​

You didn`t say Genesis, you didn`t say the old testament or the Torah you said the bible....

​

John Paul:
And I as have shown you, it is. And as I also pointed out, in the context of what you were talking about- only Genesis applies.

---

Context doesn`t enter into it mate you said the bible not Genesis, the bible refers to the whole thing not one book.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Wow, so not only would all that have to occur, but also the giraffe would have to be isolated and we would hope that the giraffe baby could nurse milk off the giraffe for a long enough time to grow to reach the tree branches.

​

---

I answered infant Giraffe survival in my first post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
This is why the evolution community has given up on that theory of giraffe evolution and has started a new one.

​

---

Science has the ability to adapt to new evidence as it becomes available. If the same were true of you you wouldn't be trotting out "Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is mutated is always worse off than he was before." 60 years after it ceased to be an issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Meanwhile the creationists still maintain the giraffe was created a giraffe as God designed him as one of the creatures to help maintain plant grow.

---

Fine, I only require you to prove it.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I've been watching this thread with interest.Question to evolutionists: If the giraffe's neck would have required many random mutations without the advantage of selection, do you agree this would make the evolution of the giraffe's neck highly implausible?Gotta run. I should be back sometime tomorrow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I've been watching this thread with interest.

​

Question to evolutionists: If the giraffe's neck would have required many random mutations without the advantage of selection, do you agree this would make the evolution of the giraffe's neck highly implausible?

​

Gotta run. I should be back sometime tomorrow.

---

Actually a good question, my first answer would be yes, it would be implausable. However,"If a population is finite in size (as all populations are) and if a given pair of parents have only a small number of offspring, then even in the absence of all selective forces, the frequency of a gene will not be exactly reproduced in the next generation because of sampling error. If in a population of 1000 individuals the frequency of "a" is 0.5 in one generation, then it may by chance be 0.493 or 0.0505 in the next generation because of the chance production of a few more or less progeny of each genotype. In the second generation, there is another sampling error based on the new gene frequency, so the frequency of "a" may go from 0.0505 to 0.501 or back to 0.498. This process of random fluctuation continues generation after generation, with no force pushing the frequency back to its initial state because the population has no "genetic memory" of its state many generations ago. Each generation is an independent event. The final result of this random change in allele frequency is that the population eventually drifts to p=1 or p=0. After this point, no further change is possible; the population has become homozygous. A different population, isolated from the first, also undergoes this random genetic drift, but it may become homozygous for allele "A", whereas the first population has become homozygous for allele "a". As time goes on, isolated populations diverge from each other, each losing heterozygosity. The variation originally present within populations now appears as variation between populations." (Suzuki, D.T., Griffiths, A.J.F., Miller, J.H. and Lewontin, R.C. in An Introduction to Genetic Analysis 4th ed. W.H. Freeman 1989 p.704)What this means is gene A in a (small)population that are randomly (sexually) selected, by chance have a greater percentage expression in the population as a whole, compared to gene B. This is entirely feasable, just random (If you replayed the scenario, gene B would be just as likely to be slightly dominant). However, in generation 2, because gene A was more numerous, the random sexual expression could go slightly either way. But because there are more gene A's in the population the likelyhood is that the incidence of gene A will increase further, until the population is homozygous with gene A (man, i need a dictionary).This genetic drift is new to me, & I can immediately think of a few problems, so I need to read up on this a bit more before before I become convinced.It's a bit off topic but I'll give you the adress anyway http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html There's probably nothing disagree on, either, just for info.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2001]

Any particular outcome is highly unlikely. However, an outcome is going to occur.

quote:

---

Actually a good question, my first answer would be yes, it would be implausable.

---

Well, here is the dilemma you face. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.Now, how do you propose these valves evolved? Natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional. So you need a bunch of lucky mutations for this scenario to play out. The odds of this happening by pure chance is pretty much impossible. You admitted above that without selection, its an implausible scnario. Its time to listen to yourself, let go of your fairytale, and come to your senses. (If you would like to see what happens to the poor Giraffe, go here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm)BTW, genetic drift is a problem for evolution. Many evolutionists realize this and reject the small population model of upward evolution. Why? Because if selection is rendered powerless, deleterious mutations will surely outpace beneficial ones since there are so many more of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Now, how do you propose these valves evolved? Natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional.

---

Natural selection could well select for a feature that develops into a full valve as that reduces the blood flow back down. Any reduction in the pressure would be useful if not fully function according to the current state of a giraffe. At this same time, the giraffe ancestor would not have had as much pressure because the neck wouldn't be as long as now.

quote:

---

So you need a bunch of lucky mutations for this scenario to play out.

---

No, you would need mutations that are selected for. Your confusion is quite apparent in the above because no one would expect those mutations to continue in the linneage without selection. Drift would select to slowly and randomly. So while in one case you claimed selection wasn't a part of the solution, you then create a situation where it would be useful. Sorry.

quote:

---

The odds of this happening by pure chance is pretty much impossible.

---

Evolution isn't by pure chance so you are making a strawman argument. And the next time you wish to claim something is impossible by probability you need to provide the figures.

quote:

---

You admitted above that without selection, its an implausible scnario. Its time to listen to yourself, let go of your fairytale, and come to your senses.

​

---

You have also introduced selection into your scenario.

quote:

---

BTW, genetic drift is a problem for evolution. Many evolutionists realize this and reject the small population model of upward evolution. Why? Because if selection is rendered powerless, deleterious mutations will surely outpace beneficial ones since there are so many more of them.

---

ROTFL---selection and drift are not mutually exclusive. Deleterious mutations are still selected against by natural selection. Drift operates on neutral mutations or those mutations with only slightly beneficial or deleterious effects on the population. You need to identify these rather extraordinary claims before making them. A cursory reading of the actual scientific literature would disabuse you of these notions before you inflict them on others.
Cheers,
Larry Handli

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Well, here is the dilemma you face. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.

​

Now, how do you propose these valves evolved? Natural selection cannot help because the valves are useless until functional. So you need a bunch of lucky mutations for this scenario to play out. The odds of this happening by pure chance is pretty much impossible. You admitted above that without selection, its an implausible scnario. Its time to listen to yourself, let go of your fairytale, and come to your senses.

​

(If you would like to see what happens to the poor Giraffe, go here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm)

​

BTW, genetic drift is a problem for evolution. Many evolutionists realize this and reject the small population model of upward evolution. Why? Because if selection is rendered powerless, deleterious mutations will surely outpace beneficial ones since there are so many more of them.

---

Firstly, a valve is anything that can restricts flow in one or both directions. A small flap which bends one way & less so in another would have the ability to restrict flow in one direction. This is true REGARDLESS OF HOW SMALL it is. If it proved to be an advantage then nat. sel. takes over.Lucky mutations, yup. But then Ive got a lot to choose from.Genetic drift does not render natural selection powerless, it operates along side it. So, I doubt if "many evolutionists" do reject drift for that reason.I did admit the scenario would be implausable without natural selection, but then I never said it did it without it.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.