True. Speaking of the giraffe, after the claims about the so-called evolution of the giraffe, I found this. Here’s a scientist who finally admits that the old fairytale told by evolutionists since Darwin’s time is false. He figured it out not by observing fossils (for which there are none showing the giraffe’s supposed evolution) but by noticing that giraffes actually eat grass – not the leaves at the top of trees.
Old news. This has been known for a long time. But the real story isn’t what you read there, either.
Of course, this evolutionist makes up another completely ridiculous just-so story about the giraffe, claiming that the long neck is a result of a mating ritual (what about the long legs???).
The long neck is quite useful as a weapon in competition for mates; some giraffe bulls have died as a result of such fighting. But if you think about it, this could not have evolved by selection until necks got long enough to swing well. That was later after long necks formed.
But if you look at the different giraffoids like the pronghorn “antelope”, the okapi, sivatherium, etc. you notice something interesting. The larger the giraffoid is absolutely, the longer the neck is relatively. Pronghorns are big deer size, and have only slightly longer necks. Okapis are considerably bigger, and have relatively longer necks. There is a series of fossil giraffes, with relative neck size related to absolute body size. This is called “allometry”, the differential growth of different parts. A good example is antlers in deer.
So the neck grew longer by allometric growth as giraffes got larger and larger. Eventually, they got long enough to be useful, and only then subject to natural selection.
Of the multitude of sub species of canines, with all the various observable traits, even with the selective breeding to create new sub species, they all remain canines and do not become other than a canine.
Turns out that’s wrong. There was a point at which canines didn’t exist. There were fossils of vaguely doglike/bearlike animals which eventually gave rise to dogs and bears.
Would you like to learn about them?
Evolution also fails to explain the feather;
Turns out that feathers can be induced to form from scutes (special sorts of scales found on birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs)
dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm
if the bat can fly without feathers then why did birds supposedly evole feathers?
The first feathers, judging from fossil dinosaurs, were for display. Only secondarily do we see them as insulation, and even later for flight.
If just for warmth, why did birds in tropical climates also develope feathers.
I don’t know that they did. The first feathered organisms were in temperate zones AFAIK.
My favorite concept remains the whole idea of “convergent evolution”. This is something that was invented because completely unrelated animals showed exactly the same kind of unique body parts.
Not hard to figure that out. Dolphins, sharks, and icthyosaurs all have a tapered, streamlined body. Turns out that’s essential for fast movement in water. But the structures involved are all formed from different things.
One instance is “old world vultures” and “New World vultures”. They supposedly both evolved from different ancestors but they look and act the same – like vultures do.
No. In fact, the difference in behavior was the first tip-off that they were polyphyletic. New World vultures find food primarily by smell, but Old World vultures do so primarily by sight. When DNA testing was feasible, a check showed that they were indeed polyphyletic as indicated by the differences in behavior.
ID/Creationism can only shrug and mutter “Godmustadunnit.” But science can show how He did it.
So to see these iconic birds supposedly evolve though blind, accidental mutations one time in history would be improbable enough.
Pretty much impossible. But they didn’t do it that way. Darwin’s discovery was that it was random change and natural selection.
But we’re supposed to believe that the same random process created an identical species of birds a second time – completely independently.
That’s the issue. It isn’t random.
There are many examples like this. The evolution of the eye, for example. Seahorses and chamelions have very similar eyes that move independently.
They only work in similar ways, but the way they are constructed is quite different. Again, natural selection produced the same solution for the same problem, but in different ways.
As you can see, ID/creationism depends on not knowing the details. When you learn more about it, you see that only evolution can account for these things.
Besides they would be sticking their heads, like the tallest dinosaurs, out of the roof of Noah’s Ark. Very uncomfortable with all that 40 days of water coming down on top of them. 
