Design implies that the optimum, can be achieved, no matter what state the species is in

[Guy Threepwood]

The Okapi. It became known to western science at the beginning of the last century. Try to keep up.

The Okapi is a Garaffid- but not the Giraffe's ancestor

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The Okapi is a Garaffid- but not the Giraffe's ancestor

Samotherium has been known for over 100 years. As @Ophiolite said, try to keep up.

 

[Ophiolite]

The Okapi is a Garaffid- but not the Giraffe's ancestor

So what? I've credited you with some grasp of aspects of evolution, but I now feel I may have been too generous.

• The Giraffe and the Okapi share a common ancestor.
• The ancestor of the giraffe is extinct, as is the Okapi's. I'm sure you can see why.
  
• There are no short necked giraffes , sensuo stricto, since by definition/classification all extant giraffes have long necks.
• A Garaffid? Really! Was that an attempt at Giraffid? I'll assume so until corrected. Giraffid is the genus that includes all four species of giraffes (though there is minor dispute over whether these wold be better regarded as subs-pecies). It does not include the single Okapi species, which is found instead in the Okapia genus, and the giraffidae family. The same family as the extant giraffes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Samotherium has been known for over 100 years. As @Ophiolite said, try to keep up.

Likewise:

Detailed anatomical analysis suggested that Samotherium is not an ancestor of the giraffes

try to pay attention to detail!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what? I've credited you with some grasp of aspects of evolution, but I now feel I may have been too generous.

• The Giraffe and the Okapi share a common ancestor.
• The ancestor of the giraffe is extinct, as is the Okapi's. I'm sure you can see why.
  
• There are no short necked giraffes , sensuo stricto, since by definition/classification all extant giraffes have long necks.
• A Garaffid? Really! Was that an attempt at Giraffid? I'll assume so until corrected. Giraffid is the genus that includes all four species of giraffes (though there is minor dispute over whether these wold be better regarded as subs-pecies). It does not include the single Okapi species, which is found instead in the Okapia genus, and the giraffidae family. The same family as the extant giraffes.

'how the Giraffe acquired such a long neck' is the one of the most simple, familiar examples used to explain Darwinism to kids.

semantics/classification aside,- did anyone ever find that short necked ancestor to actually verify the example?

Last I checked the oldest even likely ancestor had a neck that was at least as long as a modern Giraffe's


Of course this does not refute Darwinism in one go, but it does follow an emerging pattern. In Darwin's day people expected to find a lot of direct evidence of animals becoming incrementally better adapted- but as Raup pointed out, we see even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we did in Darwin's day.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Likewise:

Detailed anatomical analysis suggested that Samotherium is not an ancestor of the giraffes

try to pay attention to detail!

Moving the goalposts is such a lame tactic used by those who have lost the argument. Your original question was "Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe yet?" You've been given examples of short-necked giraffids plus an explanation that there are no extant species of short-necked giraffes.

Forget keeping up with the last 100 years of research and pay attention to the last 24 hours of your own posts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Moving the goalposts is such a lame tactic used by those who have lost the argument. Your original question was "Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe yet?" You've been given examples of short-necked giraffids plus an explanation that there are no extant species of short-necked giraffes.

Forget keeping up with the last 100 years of research and pay attention to the last 24 hours of your own posts.

"Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe yet?"

meaning in the context of Darwinian evolution of course, not just another animal that has a sort of longish neck!

But if needs clarified-the substance of the question was: Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe ancestor yet? (in the record)

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But if needs clarified-the substance of the question was: Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe ancestor yet? (in the record)

Like I said, moving the goalposts is the tactic of somebody who has already lost. You may want to learn how to phrase an argument correctly from the start in future.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So that's a no.. nobody ever found it yet?

That's okay, but it just highlights the lack of direct evidence for incremental evolution- part of the evidence that gave rise to punctuated equilibrium - at least acknowledging that the fossil record is not an illusion, there really are dramatic sudden appearances and long periods of stasis.

 

[Ophiolite]

'how the Giraffe acquired such a long neck' is the one of the most simple, familiar examples used to explain Darwinism to kids.

Yes. A fact that I find annoying in some respects, since it is not a well grounded example. There are alternative explanations and the support for the one you mention is so-so. Nevertheless it is a good example in the same way that Biblical parables illustrate important aspects of Christianity, this illustrates some of the principles of evolutionary theory.

It occurs to me that this interst/focus on the giraffe's neck suggests you think it is scientifically important. It isn't. It is educationally useful at an elementary level, but has no great scientific value except for those for whom giraffids, or narrow aspects of palaeoecology are a speciality.

meaning in the context of Darwinian evolution of course, not just another animal that has a sort of longish neck!

This raises several questions:

• Are you referring to the Okapi as another animal that has a sort of longish neck"? If so, what makes you think it was neck length that caused it to be identified as a giraffid?
  
• Why do you think it is important to find a short necked predecessor?
• What is the extent of your knowledge of taphonomy?
• Do you understand why that question can throw light on how ill informed your 'demand' for a short necked ancestor is?
• Why do you single out a single anatomical feature - neck length - and ignore other features that could be identified in potential ancestors?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes. A fact that I find annoying in some respects, since it is not a well grounded example. There are alternative explanations and the support for the one you mention is so-so. Nevertheless it is a good example in the same way that Biblical parables illustrate important aspects of Christianity, this illustrates some of the principles of evolutionary theory.

It occurs to me that this interst/focus on the giraffe's neck suggests you think it is scientifically important. It isn't. It is educationally useful at an elementary level, but has no great scientific value except for those for whom giraffids, or narrow aspects of palaeoecology are a speciality.

This raises several questions:

• Are you referring to the Okapi as another animal that has a sort of longish neck"? If so, what makes you think it was neck length that caused it to be identified as a giraffid?
  
• Why do you think it is important to find a short necked predecessor?
• What is the extent of your knowledge of taphonomy?
• Do you understand why that question can throw light on how ill informed your 'demand' for a short necked ancestor is?
• Why do you single out a single anatomical feature - neck length - and ignore other features that could be identified in potential ancestors?

As I said- this is not meant to be 'crucially important' as in a slam-dunk debunking of Darwinian evolution. But rather just illustrative of an emerging pattern in the record- i.e. that it is far more staccato than originally inherently predicted by the theory.

The Giraffe neck example persists, because it IS so intuitive- we can all imagine, as children, a Giraffe born with a slightly longer neck- having an advantage, and passing on it's genes, eventually creating new generations with incrementally longer necks- right? This makes for an extremely compelling story- and many are left with the strong impression that this example is emphatically backed up with transitional fossils

So the fact that direct evidence for this process in the record is so elusive, for even such an intuitive example, does raise the question; whether this Victorian age algorithm of random variation + natural selection is really adequate to account for what we actually see in the record: sudden appearances, followed by long periods of stasis.

And so much of the fossil record evidence HAS been based on such intuitive assumptions based in turn on superficial morphology- many of which turned out to be false. We have learned that form certainly follows function. To what degree it follows ancestry is less clear.

 

[Ophiolite]

As I said- this is not meant to be 'crucially important' as in a slam-dunk debunking of Darwinian evolution. But rather just illustrative of an emerging pattern in the record- i.e. that it is far more staccato than originally inherently predicted by the theory.

The Giraffe neck example persists, because it IS so intuitive- we can all imagine, as children, a Giraffe born with a slightly longer neck- having an advantage, and passing on it's genes, eventually creating new generations with incrementally longer necks- right? and this makes for an extremely compelling story- and many are left with the strong impression that this example is emphatically backed up with transitional fossils

So the fact that direct evidence for this process in the record is so elusive, for even such an intuitive example, does raise the question; whether this Victorian age algorithm of random variation + natural selection is really adequate to account for what we actually see in the record: sudden appearances, followed by long periods of stasis.

And so much of the fossil record evidence HAS been based on such intuitive assumptions based in turn on superficial morphology- many of which turned out to be false. We have learned that form certainly follows function. To what degree it follows ancestry is less clear.

It is interesting that you chose to ignore most of my questions. There are many possibilities for that: lack of time, lack of understanding of the questions, discourtesy, astute recognition that your answers would undermine your argument, etc. I'll presume it is lack of time: once you get around to answering, I'll respond properly to the above.

 

[Speedwell]

As I said- this is not meant to be 'crucially important' as in a slam-dunk debunking of Darwinian evolution. But rather just illustrative of an emerging pattern in the record- i.e. that it is far more staccato than originally inherently predicted by the theory.

The Giraffe neck example persists, because it IS so intuitive- we can all imagine, as children, a Giraffe born with a slightly longer neck- having an advantage, and passing on it's genes, eventually creating new generations with incrementally longer necks- right? This makes for an extremely compelling story- and many are left with the strong impression that this example is emphatically backed up with transitional fossils

So the fact that direct evidence for this process in the record is so elusive, for even such an intuitive example, does raise the question; whether this Victorian age algorithm of random variation + natural selection is really adequate to account for what we actually see in the record: sudden appearances, followed by long periods of stasis.

And so much of the fossil record evidence HAS been based on such intuitive assumptions based in turn on superficial morphology- many of which turned out to be false. We have learned that form certainly follows function. To what degree it follows ancestry is less clear.

The fact still remains that you have no alternative explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fact still remains that you have no alternative explanation.

Au Contraire!

 

[Speedwell]

Au Contraire!

Goodness! Don't keep us in suspense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Goodness! Don't keep us in suspense.

It's too good to rush..

 

[Speedwell]

It's too good to rush..

In that case I won't hold my breath. Instead, in the meantime I will accept--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted--the theory of evolution, which does offer a plausible explanation that has some confirming evidence (even if you don't think it's enough.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In that case I won't hold my breath. Instead, in the meantime I will accept--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted--the theory of evolution, which does offer a plausible explanation that has some confirming evidence (even if you don't think it's enough.)

Okay 'provisionally accept in the meantime' sounds a lot more reasonable to me than 'undeniable truth'/ 'science is settled' etc..

Something to keep an eye on meanwhile:

To follow from the Giraffe neck example, one of the tip-offs that the universe was more complex than a simple Newtonian construct (out of which Darwinian evolution was extended..) was that the more we looked at it's historical record- the more we saw it was not a slow gradual development as expected from simple rules, but 'punctuated' with distinct creative periods:

Sudden appearances- 'explosions of new forms'- which speak to greater volumes of pre-determining/ guiding information being present in some form

That's the alternative to the Darwinian mechanism of unguided 'random variation' , and is already gaining ground in secular circles: That certain specific genetic information necessary to create new biological forms was pre-existing, only needed activated not generated- Darwinism that ain't.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay 'in the meantime' sounds a lot more reasonable to me than 'undeniable truth'/ 'science is settled' etc..

I don't know where' you're getting that. No reputable scientist would say that any current scientific theory is "undeniable truth."

Something to keep an eye on meanwhile:

To follow from the Giraffe neck example, one of the tip-offs that the universe was more complex than a simple Newtonian construct (out of which Darwinian evolution was extended..) was that the more we looked at it's historical record- the more we saw it was not a slow gradual development as expected from simple rules, but 'punctuated' with distinct creative periods:

Sudden appearances- 'explosions of new forms'- which speak to greater volumes of pre-determining/ guiding information being present in some form

That's the alternative to the Darwinian mechanism of unguided 'random variation' , and is already gaining ground in secular circles: That certain specific genetic information necessary to create new biological forms was pre-existing, only needed activated not generated- Darwinism that ain't.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the theory of evolution hasn't been "Darwinism" for over a century and parallel evolutionary mechanisms besides classical randomly distributed variation and selection (which I don't think you fully understand anyway) have been discovered and accepted for almost as long.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know where' you're getting that. No reputable scientist would say that any current scientific theory is "undeniable truth."

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact"

we may agree on something then, Dawkins is not a reputable scientist!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the theory of evolution hasn't been "Darwinism" for over a century and parallel evolutionary mechanisms besides classical randomly distributed variation and selection (which I don't think you fully understand anyway) have been discovered and accepted for almost as long.

The modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution is still natural selection acting on random variation-

genetic drift etc are all various selection processes rather than creative ones