Why giraffe can't come from the evolution

[abcdefg]

Why giraffe can’t come from the evolution of shorter species(supposedly “samotherium”)

First read this article whyevolution.com/giraffe.html

Then consider this:

There is a height different between the highest point of bush and the the lowest leaf of a high tree. and a mutation (or mutations within the life span of a giraffe) increasing the length of neck can’t cover the distance. by having a neck that make the mouth only can reach somewhere between the bush and the high tree doesn’t make the animal be able to obtain more food. thus natural selection can’t pick out ones with longer necks. and if those the shorter necks starved to death, those with necks somewhere between the bush and a high tree also have to die.

The funny part is according to Lamarckism, if giraffes that have necks of intermediate lengths keep stretching their necks, then after many generation they can reach the high tree.

 

[PhilVaz]

You were destroyed on bats, you were annihilated on humans, now you will be demolished on giraffes

What you want to look up is general Artiodactyl evolution (e.g. pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows) :

Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) – The most advanced ruminants yet, called “gelocids”, with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:

Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer – cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.

Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).

From the TalkOrigins Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2C with conclusion (read the conclusion also)

See Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988): “The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and considerable skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns…the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene…” (page 507).

Fossil Record of the Artiodactyla
Artiodactyl Evolution from Britannica
Artiodactyla References

You want more? Go to a library, start looking this stuff up and do some serious study.

Phil P

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

Why giraffe can’t come from the evolution of shorter species(supposedly “samotherium”)

First read this article whyevolution.com/giraffe.html

Then consider this:

There is a height different between the highest point of bush and the the lowest leaf of a high tree. and a mutation (or mutations within the life span of a giraffe) increasing the length of neck can’t cover the distance. by having a neck that make the mouth only can reach somewhere between the bush and the high tree doesn’t make the animal be able to obtain more food. thus natural selection can’t pick out ones with longer necks. and if those the shorter necks starved to death, those with necks somewhere between the bush and a high tree also have to die.

The funny part is according to Lamarckism, if giraffes that have necks of intermediate lengths keep stretching their necks, then after many generation they can reach the high tree.

Why do you keep opening up threads about the same subject (evolution)? Other posters present credible scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution but you have never presented anything credible to refute it. You simply say everyone else is wrong and then start a new thread.
By the way, I’m curious. Is Genesis the only book in the bible you have read?

 

[abcdefg]

PhilVaz:

You were destroyed on bats, you were annihilated on humans, now you will be demolished on giraffes

Have you found bat fossils showing partly developed wings? Are there any apes have intelligence as good as humans given already millions of years according to evolution “theory”?
Where’s your long article in the ape/human thread?

PhilVaz, filter those materials yourself instead of having me looking through it. it’s your job to refute me not myself.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

Why do you keep opening up threads about the same subject (evolution)? Other posters present credible scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution but you have never presented anything credible to refute it. You simply say everyone else is wrong and then start a new thread.
By the way, I’m curious. Is Genesis the only book in the bible you have read?

See how badly you evolutionists fall into lamarckism in that human/ape thread when you say modern apes have no motivation/desire to develop better brains?

Genesis isn’t the only book in the bible I’ve read. now I’m curious is Genesis the only book in the bible you haven’t read?

 

[abcdefg]

abcdefg:

See how badly you evolutionists fall into lamarckism in that human/ape thread when you say modern apes have no motivation/desire to develop better brains?

Or deny evolution totally by stating “successful species(namely bacteria virus ameba) don’t evolve”

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

See how badly you evolutionists fall into lamarckism in that human/ape thread when you say modern apes have no motivation/desire to develop better brains?

Genesis isn’t the only book in the bible I’ve read. now I’m curious is Genesis the only book in the bible you haven’t read?

As you have addressed this to me I would be really interested if you can tell me the post number where I said anything like you are suggesting. If you can’t then please aoplogise to me!!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

As you have addressed this to me I would be really interested if you can tell me the post number where I said anything like you are suggesting. If you can’t then please aoplogise to me!!

I’m not saying you’ve said that. it’s said by someone else. however it refutes your claim that I lost in those threads. as one can see evolutionists are losing badly.

you want me to aoplogise to you. I can’t resist your request immediately as I don’t know what aoplogise means.
Oops shouldn’t have played word game myself

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

I’m not saying you’ve said that. it’s said by someone else. however it refutes your claim that I lost in those threads. as one can see evolutionists are losing badly.

you want me to aoplogise to you. I can’t resist your request immediately as I don’t know what aoplogise means.
Oops shouldn’t have played word game myself

All the posters who put forward credible evidence about evolution defeated you but unfortunately you are so arrogant you won’t accept it. You have have put forward ZERO evidence to support your rantings.

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

All the posters who put forward credible evidence about evolution defeated you but unfortunately you are so arrogant you won’t accept it. You have have put forward ZERO evidence to support your rantings.

If you want to get replies from me, make some on-topic posts, or register a new account so that I don’t know it’s you.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

If you want to get replies from me, make some on-topic posts, or register a new account so that I don’t know it’s you.

You have put forward ZERO evidence regarding your topic.
There! That’s on topic!!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

You have put forward ZERO evidence regarding your topic.
There! That’s on topic!!

Yes, it’s on topic but sadly false. I’ve put my argument and supporting evidence in my post and it doesn’t contain any disputed facts.

1. There is a height different between the highest point of bush and the the lowest leaf of a high tree.

anyone disagrees?

1. a mutation (or mutations within the life span of a giraffe) increasing the length of neck can’t cover the distance.

anyone disagrees?

1. by having a neck that make the mouth only can reach somewhere between the bush and the high tree doesn’t make the animal be able to obtain more food.

anyone disagrees?

thus natural selection can’t pick out ones with longer necks. and if those the shorter necks starved to death, those with necks somewhere between the bush and a high tree also have to die.

anyone disagrees? and why?

 

[Hitetlen]

PhilVaz:

You were destroyed on bats, you were annihilated on humans, now you will be demolished on giraffes

This is just too funny. You use a lot of time and energy to vaporize those inane “arguments” and they just keep coming. I suggest another approach: let’s just give funny answers.

Here it comes for the giraffe:

The gradual lengthening of the giraffe’s feet obviously has survival value, it allows the animal to run faster and kick stronger. (An adult giraffe can kick a lion and make it a cripple, or - “disadvantaged”, or “challenged”). Since its legs are getting longer, the neck has to follow suit, becuase the water is still down, and has to be reached from a bigger height. Thus we have a perfect explanation. The fact that the giraffe eats from the trees is just a lucky by-product.

Also, the changing height of the trees is explained. The height of the sequoias was thus proven to have a survival value to escape the nibbling of giraffes. Observe that the giraffes have all died out in the Sequoia Park, because their neck just proved to be too short. Now, we have two mysteries explained!

 

[PLP]

The Heliocentric theory of the solar system fails to explain the retrograde motion of the planets! If the planets move in ellipses, then how can they move backwards?! The evil heliocentrists cannot explain this simple fact!

 

[deb1]

abcdefg:

Yes, it’s on topic but sadly false. I’ve put my argument and supporting evidence in my post and it doesn’t contain any disputed facts.

1. There is a height different between the highest point of bush and the the lowest leaf of a high tree.

anyone disagrees?

1. a mutation (or mutations within the life span of a giraffe) increasing the length of neck can’t cover the distance.

anyone disagrees?

1. by having a neck that make the mouth only can reach somewhere between the bush and the high tree doesn’t make the animal be able to obtain more food.

anyone disagrees?

thus natural selection can’t pick out ones with longer necks. and if those the shorter necks starved to death, those with necks somewhere between the bush and a high tree also have to die.

anyone disagrees? and why?

I am a fence sitter in this arguement, perhaps with some leaning toward evolutionary theory but mainly I don’t know. It doesn’t affect my faith either way.

I do have a question though. I am in NC, so I am unfamiliar with the details of African foliage. Perhaps this poster knows more then me on this issue and I will admit that. But here in NC, I have noticed tall bushes and short trees. SOme trees I, at five feet, can reach up and pull leaves off their lowest brances. Some bushes reach far above my head. Isn’t the same true in Africa? What I am trying to get at is this…doesn’t the foliage of high bushes and low trees overlap a bit? WOuldn’t a creature with a mid size neck be able to feed on either the tops of tall bushes or the branches of smaller trees?

I suppose that what I am disagreeing is your assertion in number 1. That there is a difference between the highest branches of all bushes and the lowest branchees of the trees.

 

[abcdefg]

Hitetlen:

The gradual lengthening of the giraffe’s feet obviously has survival value, it allows the animal to run faster and kick stronger. (An adult giraffe can kick a lion and make it a cripple, or - “disadvantaged”, or “challenged”). Since its legs are getting longer, the neck has to follow suit, becuase the water is still down, and has to be reached from a bigger height. Thus we have a perfect explanation. The fact that the giraffe eats from the trees is just a lucky by-product.

what do you mean by “follow suit”? Neck obviously extended unproportionally faster than legs.

澳门人·威尼斯3966(澳门)股份有限公司-欢迎进入

澳门人威尼斯3966【whyevolution.com】⚡⚡⚡【斯诺克】澳门人威尼斯3966秉持最好的服务,努力为您提供优质产品资讯服务和体验,澳门人威尼斯3966让使用者方便地储存及整理从网路上收集的资料,让玩家玩的开心,所以也提醒大家一定要擦亮自己的眼睛。

www.whyevolution.com

Hitetlen:

Also, the changing height of the trees is explained. The height of the sequoias was thus proven to have a survival value to escape the nibbling of giraffes. Observe that the giraffes have all died out in the Sequoia Park, because their neck just proved to be too short. Now, we have two mysteries explained!

Why giraffes there can’t develop longer necks? the neck length gene is fixed and can’t change?

 

[abcdefg]

deb1:

I do have a question though. I am in NC, so I am unfamiliar with the details of African foliage. Perhaps this poster knows more then me on this issue and I will admit that. But here in NC, I have noticed tall bushes and short trees. SOme trees I, at five feet, can reach up and pull leaves off their lowest brances. Some bushes reach far above my head. Isn’t the same true in Africa? What I am trying to get at is this…doesn’t the foliage of high bushes and low trees overlap a bit? WOuldn’t a creature with a mid size neck be able to feed on either the tops of tall bushes or the branches of smaller trees?

澳门人·威尼斯3966(澳门)股份有限公司-欢迎进入

澳门人威尼斯3966【whyevolution.com】⚡⚡⚡【斯诺克】澳门人威尼斯3966秉持最好的服务,努力为您提供优质产品资讯服务和体验,澳门人威尼斯3966让使用者方便地储存及整理从网路上收集的资料,让玩家玩的开心,所以也提醒大家一定要擦亮自己的眼睛。

www.whyevolution.com

trees are one giraffe neck taller than bushes. in the picture on the right you can also see some other trees/bushes behind.

 

[thistle]

To Hitetlen.

I don’t think abcdefg got the joke!!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

To Hitetlen.

I don’t think abcdefg got the joke!!

Do you think a giraffe is a deer scaled up? or it seems the neck/leg ratio of giraffe is larger than that of a deer.

for every creature longer legs is an advantage. there’s no need just addressing this about giraffe.

You take a joke for real!!

 

[deb1]

abcdefg:

whyevolution.com: Evolusi Generasi Muda di Dunia - Solusi Terbaik Menjadi Evolusi Generasi Muda di Dunia yang Membanggakan

trees are one giraffe neck taller than bushes. in the picture on the right you can also see some other trees/bushes behind.

I am not trying to be arguementative, I promise. One thing that I love to do is watch all those documentaries on animals. (I am boring what can I say) Anyway I am certain that I have seen zebras, on those documentaries, eating the leaves off of the lower branches on the trees. So, it makes sense that not all trees are the same height in Africa.