Proportion, a giraffe could bite its own toenails

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
I think ironbutterflyrusted asked the questions to get a better understanding of the subject in the first place so they are far from invalid.

They all depend on the answer to the first question being what ironbutterflyrusted wants it to be. A different answer (the correct answer) renders all the succeeding questions invalid. Take another look at the sequence and you will see I am right.

You should remember the process of evolution is not consistant in all animals and at the end of the day is still a theory.

Clearly this is an area in which you aren't too well informed yourself. Evolution works the same for all species - as Darwin made clear in the title of his seminal book. As for evolution being 'still a theory', that is only true in the sense that it is 'still a theory' that the sun will rise tomorrow.

This is after all a forum for debate...

And that, my friend, is why I like it here.

Clearly this is an area in which you aren't too well informed yourself. Evolution works the same for all species

As we dont have a complete fossil record of all the species in all stages of evolution this is only a guess. We certainly dont hve any proof of our own evolution until scientists can fill in 'the missing link'. I saw a post here the other day saying Darwins Finch's were regressing to an earlier form so there are many things that dont fit into the theory of evolution.

Im just saying you shouldnt be so harsh on someone for asking questions.

reply to post by VitalOverdose


Thanks for the defence...its ok, getting used to these kinds of responses from `Darwin Devotees`...most are unaware of `what` real debates are, and usually very`uppity`, prefering self-importance, to facts.

Not to be a "Darwin Devotee"

Adaptations do not need to depend on proportion. But... hold on. You might like this. They often can, but it's not a rule. Environments would create conditions where maintaining a proportion could be detrimental to the species.

"The number turns up frequently in geometry, particularly in figures with pentagonal symmetry. Indeed, the length of a regular pentagon's diagonal is times its side. The vertices of a regular icosahedron are those of three mutually orthogonal golden rectangles. Also, it appears in the Fibonacci sequence, related to growth by recursion[8]. It is approximately equal to 1.61803398874, or, more precisely, .
Adolf Zeising, whose main interests were mathematics and philosophy, found the golden ratio expressed in the arrangement of branches along the stems of plants and of veins in leaves. He extended his research to the skeletons of animals and the branchings of their veins and nerves, to the proportions of chemical compounds and the geometry of crystals, even to the use of proportion in artistic endeavours. In these phenomena he saw the golden ratio operating as a universal law.[9] Zeising wrote in 1854:"

en.wikipedia.org...
"Not sure if it helps but it is interesting, looked it up...a human and a giraffe have the same amount of cervical vertebrae, 7 like other mammals, it is odd that all mammals share this number.

Other vertebrate species vary greatly but some are still quite close, a swan has 22-25 and a sloth has 25."
A sloth is a mammal.

reply to post by Astyanax


...seems to me that you have no answers to the questions, and if your source of knowledge is Mr Dawkin, I am frankly not suprised.

Mr Dawkins explanations for the evolution of the giraffe in his book,`Climbing Mount Improbable`, are not representative of experts in the field. Mr Dawkins can provide no explanation for the unique structures found in the giraffe, and can provide no explanation for how random mutations could have achieved such a feat.The use of diagrams depicting the `okapi` are deliberately misleading, they show this species to be nearly twice the size it actually is, and provides no evidence for the many hundreds of transitional forms demanded, to bridge the gap.

This obsession with the giraffe, specifically, has historical roots. The giraffe is seen as the most important account because it was pivotal, in the refutation of Jean Baptiste Lamarcks, theory of `acquired characteristics`. In truth this refutation was based on no empirical findings, it was a product of evolutionary propoganda...the very same tactics are being used today, by Mr Dawkin.

The information regarding the Vagus nerve and the branching of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerves, is of no consequence, when deciding whether design of some type is present in the Anatomy/Physiology of a species. This argument does not conform to the demands of a scientific proof, and is therefore just a subjective opinion, used to add weight to a theory. Mr Dawkin fails to realize the difficulties involved in defining what `Design`is, and how it should be looked for. Preferring to suggest that the only `Design` argument worth attacking, is that of an Omnipotent Being, he is thus oblivious to this anthropomorphism and obviously not aware of Metaphysical debates and current scientific studies.

If you support the theory of evolution as presented today, I urge you to watch these programs...`Inside natures giants`, UK, Channel 4, availiable online.

The elephant.

The `experts` did not touch upon anything, remotely related to an explanation for any of the major organs or the significant anatomical/physiological differences of the respiratory cavity of the elephant...listen for the wonderful, "we do not know", when a specific question is asked...then a babble about aquatic origins, with whales, who in turn came from bears...they did fail to mention the bears, I wonder why.?

The mantra of the evolutionary devotees, was constantly repeated, before and after the various vacuous comments, which culminated in an appearance by the light-weight scientist and decidedly amateur Philosopher of Metaphysics, Mr Dawkin. His soft voiced, patronizing approach, tried in vain to weave the magical spells of his beloved Darwin, eventually resorting to a series of hollow statements that approached the work of Lamarck...supporters of Darwin never fully explain their fundamentally, disconnected view of species and environment, I have heard countless comments that imply otherwise.

reply to post by Astyanax


This is not the first time such an approach has been made, infact it seems to have become the norm. Maybe this is because of the current research, showing nature to be more of a connected whole than the gene based theory can account for...a case of, quick check the documents, did Darwin ever resolutely deny the theory of Lamarckism.

Maybe the mounting pressure on this greedy, subsuming theory of Darwinism, to actually define itself, so an exception to the premisses can be shown, will be achieved, and the sophistry, in the modern sense of the word, revealed...I hope so.


...a few lines on Darwin and Lamarck,

The Natural Philosopher, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was the first to promote an organic,materialist view of evolution. He postulated a principle called the `inheritance of acquired characteristics`, change in a characteristic during an animals lifetime due to behaviour, and the passing of these changes to the offspring via fundamental substances,resulting in variation/speciation.

His major work `Philosophie Zoologique`1809, was praised by Darwin and considered when producing "HIS" theory of `Pangenesis`, that when given to Huxley for criticism was astonished to find that Buffon had anticipated him by 100 years.
Huxley wrote that he would not take a low view of Darwins contribution but thought that Buffon and Lamarck would run him hard in both genius and fertility, he continued, in breadth of view and in extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though we are apt to forget their services...these sentiments could have easily have come from the geologist Charles Lyell, who also saw merit in Lamarcks work.

Darwin on the whole simply collated the historical and current ideas of the time. His lack of obligation and financial security, allowed him to develop a network of acquaintances from various fields of science, to ask favours of, through correspondence or in person. He acquired an extensive library, consisting of many French works, and made countless notes after talks with the experienced breeders. True to form Darwin again offered no thanks or credit to those who in alot of cases unwittingly contributed to his great work, and denied ever knowing about previous conclusions/theories that had been written, when it suited him or out of sheer arrogance, ignorantly skipping through the works of others, believing that they had nothing to teach him.

The fragile link between Darwin and Lamarck, was brief ...in the years to come, ad hoc hypothesis abound, the problems where resolved by a collection of observations made by unnamed others, being added to the work of August Weismann, who produced `his` 1893 theory of the germplasm and the creation of the `Weismann barrier`...helped by the rediscovery of the work of an Abbot, called Gregor Mendel. The outcome of all this was the refutation and ridicule of Lamarcks ideas, and the eventual acceptance of the `Modern evolutionary synthesis`.

According to sites on the web the best descriptions of Lamarcks work are those obtained from Darwinists...this is nonsense, if you follow this route they will have you believe that Lamarck was just a `romanticist` and that `he` the `materialist` through the work of Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire a `transcendentalist` and Étienne Serres an `embryologist` can be joined to the discredited work of Ernst Haeckel...this is not true, as any Philosophical texts will show...Ernst Haeckel supported Darwin in Germany, and his Lamarckian influence was not taken from the Lamarckian Theory directly.

Discoveries such as `Reverse transcription` developed by Ted Steele, showing the `Weismann barrier` can be breached, the recent work in`Epigenetic Inheritance` by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb, work involving the apparent inheritance of problem solving, the effects of temperature on the frequency of mutations and many others that receive very little press, show that there is more to evolution than the `narrow` view being presented today...all of this opens the very real possibility of a NeoLamarckian inclusion...a revision of the current theory is imperative and appeals by Neo-Darwinists to the supposed, historical links Darwin had with Lamarckian views, should not be seen as a reason to simply integrate his ideas, Lamarck deserves to stand in his own right alongside Darwin.

Countless others, deserve credit for setting into motion the real revolution, of which Darwin became the beneficiary.

reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted


"Mr Dawkins can provide no explanation for the unique structures found in the giraffe, and can provide no explanation for how random mutations could have achieved such a feat."

Your posts are thought provoking.

Mutations happen. Sometimes as an adaptation to benefit livelihood. Sometimes just as a side effect of other DNA changes. But a giraffe? Really? No one can figure it out? The hooves are common. The spots are camouflage. The height is to get the food others cannot reach. The ossicones are probably mutations from something that was once a sort of horn that became no longer useful and was covered in skin and fur. The long tongue facilitates feeding.

This reminds me of this one time. We were in chemistry and learning about van der Waals forces and geckos. (pubs.acs.org...)

So we talked about fur and hairs and cells and charges and electrical currents and things for awhile and my teacher decided he wanted to find a video of an explanation. So we found this video of a guy talking. And he started talking about suction cups on the gecko's hairs, and all sorts of things. And he said, how miraculous, this creation, it could never have evolved to get little suction cups on its feet.

Not only was he wrong about the mechanism, he was trying to use his incorrect information to perpetuate creationism. Evolution simply wasn't that amazing.

I think he's wrong, personally. But, you know, evolution in laboratories, recessive traits, and random mutations apparently aren't enough.

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Thank you.

I hadn`t realised the Fibonacci system of numbers had been developed this far...I was silently leading up to the occurence of this number sequence, and the effects that this could have on species development.

That is why I was quite suprised with the `Giraffe`, maybe I should have said at the outset. I will definately look into this.

reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted


goldennumber.net...

Here's a whole fanclub for you. You're welcome.

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
...seems to me that you have no answers to the questions

Yes, but then you would think that, wouldn't you?

This obsession with the giraffe, specifically, has historical roots. The giraffe is seen as the most important account because it was pivotal, in the refutation of Jean Baptiste Lamarcks

Lamarck, not Lamarcks.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

reply to post by Astyanax


If your interested...

Comte de Buffon 1749-1804
Produced `Histoire Naturelle`, 44 vols(last 8 posthumously), one of the most monumental, and influential books in the history of science.
Through experiment, estimated the Earth to be 75,000yrs old.
Hinted at a version of `Evolution`, 1753.
Proclaimed the ape to be from the same family as that of man.
Everything sprung from a common `stock`, that became `Higher` or `Lower` forms through successive `Generations`.
Pointed out the lack of a perfect plan.

Jean Fourier 1768-1830
Estimated age of Earth, 100 million yrs.

Georges Cuvier 1769-1832
Lectured on Comparative Anatomy, and almost single-handedly created the science of `Paleontology`.
His works proved invaluable, in the interpreting and classifying of fossil remains.
Provided a guide to the age of fossils(higher,lower) by which strata they were found.
Recognised the process of `extinction`.

Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire 1772-1844
Extended Lamarcks theory, to include the direct role of the environment, on species development.
Described a process that might well have been called `natural selection`...If these modifications lead to injurious effects, the animals which exhibit them perish and are replaced by others of a somewhat differant form.A form changed so as to be adapted to the new environment. quote: David Young, The discovery of Evolution

James Hutton 1726-1797
Produced the Uniformitarian Theory of Geology.(big influence on C.Lyell)
Concluded, everything we see could be explained by the processes seen at work in the present.
Regarded the age of the Earth beyond comprehension.

Weave into this the work of Thomas R Malthus 1766-1834, who greatly influenced Darwin and Wallace...correctly identifying breeding and feeding, as the pressures on survival.

...so how revolutionary was Mr Darwin.?

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
Comte de Buffon 1749-1804: Produced 'Histoire Naturelle'...

Yes.

Jean Fourier 1768-1830: Estimated age of Earth...

Probably. I'll take your word for it.

Georges Cuvier 1769-1832: Lectured on Comparative Anatomy, and almost single-handedly created the science of...

Yes. Didn't believe in evolution, though.

Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire 1772-1844: Described a process that might well have been called 'natural selection'...

Might, but not quite. Darwin acknowledges his contribution in The Origin.

James Hutton 1726-1797: Produced the Uniformitarian Theory of Geology (big influence on C.Lyell)

Yes. Lyell was a massive and direct influence (again, freely acknowledged), on Darwin. Modern readers of The Voyage of the Beagle are often amused by young Charles's flawed, Lyellesque geologizing.

Weave into this the work of Thomas R Malthus 1766-1834, who greatly influenced Darwin and Wallace...

And whose influence is, again, acknowledged in the Origin. In the introduction to the book, no less.

...so how revolutionary was Mr Darwin.?

If you have to ask the question, you probably won't be able to understand the answer.

reply to post by Astyanax


You are very `funny`.

Your closed mind, defeats the very objective of science...progression and reassessment.

Have you ever read Kuhn, Feyerabend, Popper..etc.?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


Why choose to be, `one or the other`.? evolution/creation

The subjects involved will change, new processes found(not through truly scientific methods), units inferred/described, which predetermined experiments validate, Peers resist, maybe accomodate...etc and on the other hand, scripture will always post from the list of leading interpretations, to define a time.

Theses topics of creation, life, change...are undefinable, within either of the disciplines. Questions have no application, and mere associations will only provide us with `things`.

Science claims eminence, with these `things`of technology, believing outcomes within the unaccountable lego of universe, proves their laws/methods and justifies presuming/describing `all` as an incomplete `thing`.
Science, guided through the law of chaos by the belief of an unadulterated objective reality, through a veil of subjectivity. The outcome, every avenue of trial and error is predicted by the incompleteness of previous `things`and those before them, resulting in countless failures and deaths.

Science should put more thought into their creations, take more time to discover if a `black swan` exists, and provide the means for species of this planet to truly explore this space we find ourselves in.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The quicker one responds, the better, so evolution has arranged matters so that as little time as possible is lost in getting that signal from the eye to the brain. That is why all animals have eyes on their heads, or at best on stalks....

As for eye position, predators and arboreal animals tend to have eyes at the front of their heads because this is the best position for stereoscopic vision, which is necessary for judging distances.....

Herbivores, which are usually prey, tend to have eyes located where they can best spot threats against themselves...

i felt impelled to make a comment on this just because of the shear obviousness of it.

you (evolutionists in general) are talking about the structure of an animal and how it is apparently optimized for certain tasks, and yet you will call those who see it as evidence of "design" irrational?

just an observation

reply to post by miriam0566

you (evolutionists in general) are talking about the structure of an animal and how it is apparently optimized for certain tasks, and yet you will call those who see it as evidence of "design" irrational?

just an observation.

Hello again, my dear. An observation in the form of an aggressive question, eh?

Well, I've never called someone irrational for suggesting that functional optimization is evidence of design. Surely living beings are designed. They do not happen upon the forms they do by accident.

I don't recall any developer, teacher, popularizer or defender of evolutionary theory ever calling the idea that living things are designed 'irrational'. We all agree that they were designed - by natural selection.

The irrational part is believing in God. That kind of God, anyway.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Well, I've never called someone irrational for suggesting that functional optimization is evidence of design. Surely living beings are designed. They do not happen upon the forms they do by accident.

good, then you are logical, sadly a quality lacking on this forum...

I don't recall any developer, teacher, popularizer or defender of evolutionary theory ever calling the idea that living things are designed 'irrational'. We all agree that they were designed - by natural selection.

i recall several who have called me many things for thinking that animals bare evidence of design. including several threads on ATS

natural selection is not design. it may explain how certain traits survive or cease in species, but it doesnt explain how the traits got there in the first place.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

take a ravine with trees that fall across it when they die. some trees fall into the ravine, but some land perfectly so that they make a bridge.

that would be an example of natural selection in a random environment.

take the same ravine and see that it has a bridge that has been carved ornately, carefully placed so as to optimise strength.

evidence of design.

i mean one can use infinite probability and then anything is possible. but really come on, its as silly as happening upon a house in a forest and claiming that it was formed without a builder.

The irrational part is believing in God. That kind of God, anyway.

i ask this seriously, why would that be irrational?

reply to post by miriam0566

i ask this seriously, why would that be irrational?

I reply, just as seriously, that the answer is long and this is not the place for it.

Very simply put, i see some definitive moral and philosophical objections to a being that is simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, and that is simultaneously omnipotent and 'good' (as opposed to evil). Such a being simply cannot exist - or if it does, it does so in defiance of all logic, and therefore cannot be the Creator - because the Creation is an admirably logical system.

It has little to do with the theory of evolution except this: the theory accounts for an apparent flaw in the system. Life is, on the face of it, improbable. But improbable is not the same thing as impossible.

To add:

i recall several who have called me many things for thinking that animals bare evidence of design.

Don't know what they called you, but they were probably using the above as shorthand for 'evidence of intelligent design'. I've used that myself when the context was clear enough for me not to be misunderstood. You have to admit 'intelligent' design is a pretty farfetched idea.
Mark my words: as we learn more about the universe, we shall come to understand that life, far from being improbable, is inevitable.

[edit on 6/8/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

The quicker one responds, the better, so evolution has arranged matters so that as little time as possible is lost in getting that signal from the eye to the brain. That is why all animals have eyes on their heads, or at best on stalks.

Am I the only one who thinks "evolution" sounds like an intelligent entity?

The quicker one responds, the better, so the creator has arranged matters so that as little time as possible is lost in getting that signal from the eye to the brain.

The 2 are interchangeable, eh?

There are two things which will always come in the way of a debate between evolutionists and creationists. Those are the following:

1. Evolutionists "know" they are right.

2. Creationists "know" they are right.

No matter what you do, you cannot convince either to jump the fence.

reply to post by Lannock

I see you have taken the point of the way my post was worded. Well grasped.

The arguments against God do not come from evolution. They come, as I said earlier, from elsewhere. Evolution merely provides a sensible alternative explanation for what looks on a superficial view like evidence of a supernatural creative force, but which, on closer inspection, quite plainly isn't.