and veins? muscles, tendons, lymph system, nerves too?
Obviously - yes, because all grow with individuals from childhood to adulthood.
if you think stating a fact is trolling then indeed i am trolling,
oh please , you have cherry picked mine? AND addressed me so i believe that is called hippocrisy
I have done no such thing.
you have not disproved your incredulity ie, i dont understand something so there for i attribute it to "lazy" design, what an odd thing to say about nature imo.
The Lazy Designer theory was not born out of incredulity, it was born out of observation.
Oh, but those body plans are put to use is such uncountable and myriad ways, modifications of every archetypal plan give nature her pallet. There is archetypal forms, but there is such variation that yout point really says nothign at all except that nature is efficient since it uses a solid base in endless ways for purposes that we are still and alwasy will be discovering!
Yeah, you've clearly missed the point I was making.
OH im abusing the term, how terrible! its the only term i can use for parts that co evolve over long periods..unles there is a better term?
Yes, you're abusing the term.
if you got this from anything i said then i cant help you.
Now you're backpeddling because you've realized just how ridiculous some of what you're suggesting sounds.
My point was that if your example requires co-evolution of all of these multiple independent factors, than so does the growth of a newborn to adulthood, because that's all we're talking about here - a few individuals whos necks grew for longer than was 'average' (a genetically controled trait) gained a slight advantage, and passed that trait along.
The point that I was making was that "How did the nerves in the neck, the veins in the neck, the muscles in the neck, and the lymphatic system keep up with the growth of the neck" has the same answer as it does when an individual grows from being a newborn to adulthood.
nope, i have weighed the evidence i have seen so far(i notice you chose not to link me up to anything, your call.) and deducted that it simply dosent hold up, ie, the extrapolation of what we observe now is strethed way to far.
You want me to link you up with evidence that proves that a giraffes neck grows between childhood and adulthood?
You dont believe it happened? so you know ? indeed it is faith, whether or not you want to admit that. Do you think there is no faith in what you deducted?
Trolling again?
I explained what I meant. There was no faith in anything I said, only inference and deduction.
I really dont remembering asserting such a thing becuase if i did i admit it was silly.
It is implicit in your assertions, and in your reply, yes.
and you CAN see so therefore assume that it was.
NO!
I infer that it might have been.
I aknowledge the possibility that it might have been.
There is a
huge difference.
And your right i didnt consider the potential advantages closely enough but i cant think of any at the moment since(surly) it would give terribel blood flow to the lower legs when the veins arent adapted to such force?
This is an assumption, it's also a strawman hypothesis.
For a start off, you're assuming that it appeared in it's current form, I am not.
You're assuming it appeared able to withstand the forces it currently withstands, I am not.
You're also assuming that it was capable of withstanding all of the forces it was subjected to in its original form, I am not.
Of course thinking up advantages to suit what youthink happened dosent really count as much.
Again, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.
well thats if it was there of course..i would like to hear some of these myriad possibilities.
I've already given you a couple.
first off i dont presume to know if such a change could occur in 1 mutation, neither do i presume to know if it would not be selected out becuase it may (although improve the sexual fitness) degrade the overall fitness.
Yes you do.
You presume that it would have led to problematically low bloodflow in the legs, for example.
second, its a just so story unfortunatly to fit the fact that you already pre suppose how indeed it happened. Nothing wrong with that i suppose, i simply dont agree. as of yet
No it isn't.
thats assuming bruising would be the worst of the problems for such an organism in that situation. It measn that strapping would have "had to" come along before the pressure got worse(since they are here now)..
and lucky enough, it did.
Yeah, remember the part of the conversation where I suggested it was a pre-existing feature for other purposes that evolution co-opted?
and there fore the rest of the whole thing is set in motion!
or rather this is a possibility based on what you think happened.
I suggested it as a p[ossibility, nothing more.
I disagree, there are many many examples(i will adress them in a later thread) exampmles in nature where conventional theory can only suggset that certain organisms co evolved, or certiain features of organisms co evolved or even whole sexes and symbiotic relationships. So indeed there is a coevolution issue and i will hopefully get some feedback on a further post about it.
Context, please.
We're talking about Giraffes, and girraffes only at this point.
I wasn't saying that co-evoilution doesn't occur, only that this isn't an example of it.
nope, there are alot of us who are simply seekers of knowledge not religous folk. That word is quite loaded becuase i would consider myself somewhat spiritual or reverant of nature maybe..
where we came from, our history, our evoltuion is so important to better lay out our future and in simply want to get as close to that truth as i can. As of now, i simply dont find myself at all convinced by the mechanissm put forward for what we actually see in nature..thats all
Then seek knowledge, not religous tales told around a campfire.
I assure you i am not bringing up read herrings on purpose. I simply dont check is every question i want to ask already answered, if it was, you dont have to answer yourself and therefore have no one to blame.
Deliberatness is irrelevant.
some evidence might help. not forgetting the heart of course.
So go out and measure the neck lengths of a bunch of giraffes.
If indeed it took one change, can we be sure a random mutation to a hox gene would not scramble the info for the worse? is there evidenec that mutations in a hox gene can cause advantageous morphologicalchanges ?
Who said it was neccessarily a Hox gene that was responsible for it? I didn't - I simply made the point that mutations in single genes can have wide ranging effects on morphology. The Hox genes are simply one example of that - they're relevant, because they control the segmentation of the spinal colum, but they're not the only factor affecting the growth of the neck.
so becuase i have looked at the same type of evidence as you and come to a (tentative) conclusion that opposes yours i am incredulous..this is simply the crap that is alwasy thrown around me when i question the thoery. I question becuase i see the evidence, not because i dont apriori disbelieve it could happen/
Then perhaps you should re-examine the language you use, and avoid phrases like "I don't believe..."
you keep telling yourself that, i simply admit i dont know how it could have happened yet.
I'd use a smiley here, but i've reached my limit already.
and which points cant be addresed in such a way?
Which one do you think?
again, your free to tell youself that.
And you wonder why people on this forum think you're a creationist troll...
Yes.
yet you admit earlier you are speculating?
I also said that I was speculating on the basis of evidence and deductive logic - take a moment to think about it.
does that mean it has not yet been proven,
No.
and if so then dont be so sure it can.
Good god man. I'm telling you that my speculation produces testable predictions. By definition that makes it falsafiable.
and you have provided none that it has, i dont claim to have evidence of how it happened, i am simply critiqing what is said to hear how i am rebutted so i can learn from those points and form a better picture of the thoughts on such matter and the evidence for and against.
I have, or at least dmeonstrated methods by which it sould be - you just haven't understood that, either through genuine ignorance, or because you have a hidden agenda, my money is on teh second, compounded by the first.
