Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

How did your god originate? Did it

a) Evolve?
b) Was it designed and created?
c) Did it appear by accident?
d) Something else?

What is the current theory of origin?

change requires, happens, over time, you're talking about the guy who invented the whole idea in the first place!

He's not constrained by the laws of his own creation

 

[ArtieE]

change requires, happens, over time, you're talking about the guy who invented the whole idea in the first place!

He's not constrained by the laws of his own creation

So he can create a square circle then?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So he can create a square circle then?

Well he did a lot of interesting things with curving 'flat' dimensions to create higher ones, so I wouldn't put it past him!

 

[ArtieE]

Well he did a lot of interesting things with curving 'flat' dimensions to create higher ones, so I wouldn't put it past him!

The Urantia Book Fellowship | Expanding Spiritual Awareness
I am in the process of reading it. Much more detailed than the Bible and the Qu'ran and very interesting.

 

[Deeje]

I agree it is more important how life begun. I also agree that we don’t have the answer. But I am not separating that from Evolution. It IS a separate thing by definition.

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".
For those who believe in ID, they are inseparable.....one explains the other with no conflict or hesitation.

For the purpose of this thread, which is about Evolution vs Creationism, I’m agreeing with Evolution. I’d prefer to stick to one discussion at a time, rather than to keep changing the subject. It seems more like you don’t want to consider the Evolution argument at all. Why don’t you consider the possibility that God DID create life, then Evolution brought about the variety of life?

I know this is a long thread, but please understand that I have no difficulty at all accepting "adaptation" as part of the Creator's purpose in having diversity and variety within species. Science has no valid proof that adaptation leads to macro-changes in living things. It cannot prove ancestry or relationship....these are all assumed.

Since science wants to connect adaptation and macro-evolution as inseparably being the same essential process over a greater time period, it is a strange thing indeed that they can connect these two separate events when it suits them, but disconnect abiogenesis and evolution for the same reason.

For the purpose of this argument, the automatic process of fractals basically means a process that does NOT require thinking, but only physics.

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?
Do you see how much science glosses over as if these things are just "the way it is"? Do you never ask "why" it is the way it is?

Such processes exist everywhere. Circles form through an automatic process, because of gravity. So from no shape, you get a shape. Waves on a beach often create interesting patterns in the sand. Do you agree these are non-thinking physical processes or is God making the shapes and patterns all the time?

Is gravity something we also take for granted as "natural"? What is gravity and how is it used in the universe to keep things where they ought to be? Just another "natural" fluke? Again, so much is glossed over as if it just "is".

I invite you to look at this.....

What could possibly move this little fish to produce something so perfect and intricate? Is this from gravity? What natural forces are at work here? Would land dwelling humans ever see this work of art if it were not for the ability to capture the scene on a camera and beam it to the world? How much can we gloss over as "natural" when everything in nature screams "DESIGN".

Here is a video on Birds of Paradise.

Listen as the evolutionists try to fit these birds into their 'belief system'. Its funny that the word "miraculous" comes into the conversation.....these birds truly are "miraculous". Their plumage and dancing are said to have evolved, but really when you consider that they are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, we have to ask why that is assumed? How much suggestion does it take with no real evidence that evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever took place?

 

[osgart]

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".
For those who believe in ID, they are inseparable.....one explains the other with no conflict or hesitation.



I know this is a long thread, but please understand that I have no difficulty at all accepting "adaptation" as part of the Creator's purpose in having diversity and variety within species. Science has no valid proof that adaptation leads to macro-changes in living things. It cannot prove ancestry or relationship....these are all assumed.

Since science wants to connect adaptation and macro-evolution as inseparably being the same essential process over a greater time period, it is a strange thing indeed that they can connect these two separate events when it suits them, but disconnect abiogenesis and evolution for the same reason.

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?
Do you see how much science glosses over as if these things are just "the way it is"? Do you never ask "why" it is the way it is?



Is gravity something we also take for granted as "natural"? What is gravity and how is it used in the universe to keep things where they ought to be? Just another "natural" fluke? Again, so much is glossed over as if it just "is".

I invite you to look at this.....

What could possibly move this little fish to produce something so perfect and intricate? Is this from gravity? What natural forces are at work here? Would land dwelling humans ever see this work of art if it were not for the ability to capture the scene on a camera and beam it to the world? How much can we gloss over as "natural" when everything in nature screams "DESIGN".

Here is a video on Birds of Paradise.

Listen as the evolutionists try to fit these birds into their 'belief system'. Its funny that the word "miraculous" comes into the conversation.....these birds truly are "miraculous". Their plumage and dancing are said to have evolved, but really when you consider that they are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, we have to ask why that is assumed? How much suggestion does it take with no real evidence that evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever took place?

I find the exact same holes in their reasoning. blind to the questions you pose to them.

it's as if they want you to pacify yourself to the screaming evident questions that arise, and just accept it is brute fact and chance to the point of natural selection.

even DNA was said to be that their was a lot of junk DNA. and your previous link refutes that nicely.

it is endless glazing over the questions that you pose to them to ask for themselves.

I take it that they will say their is mechanisms that causes all laws of physics, purely natural, and purely by chance, or that they are happy to accept the laws of physics as they are, no need for further explanation.

it's a no matter what proposition they make, to reject intelligent design.

and it's also cheap to pass intelligent design off as young earth creationism.

 

[scott777]

Yet Darwinists believe that the origin of man was derived from accidental changes in animals- likewise chemical evolution is the belief that biology itself was originated by changes in physical/chemical compositions.

So while the two are easy to separate semantically, it's not so easy in practical reality is it?

For the sake of argument, when I refer to evolution, I'm talking about evolution from simple multi-cellular organisms. Chemical Evolution is not the same as the Evolution that most people are referring to, which is defined as biological. The 'likewise' part does not make sense, because these 2 processes are not alike.

 

[scott777]

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".
For those who believe in ID, they are inseparable.....one explains the other with no conflict or hesitation.



I know this is a long thread, but please understand that I have no difficulty at all accepting "adaptation" as part of the Creator's purpose in having diversity and variety within species. Science has no valid proof that adaptation leads to macro-changes in living things. It cannot prove ancestry or relationship....these are all assumed.

Since science wants to connect adaptation and macro-evolution as inseparably being the same essential process over a greater time period, it is a strange thing indeed that they can connect these two separate events when it suits them, but disconnect abiogenesis and evolution for the same reason.

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?


When did I assume that? We haven’t discussed the origin of physics. Let’s assume you’re right, and physics and the universe and simple life were all created by God. Now back to the point I was making about Evolution, which you seem to be avoiding.


I’m pointing out that the diversity and complexity and beauty of life could come from more simple non-beautiful things using simple rules. Fractals show a similar process. But you still haven’t acknowledged that my fractal is beautiful (and complex), or that it can come from a simple algorithm which is not beautiful, via a simple process (which is not intelligent but mathematical). (Please assume that mathematics and simple algorithms and simple rules were all created by God).



Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?
Do you see how much science glosses over as if these things are just "the way it is"? Do you never ask "why" it is the way it is?



Is gravity something we also take for granted as "natural"? What is gravity and how is it used in the universe to keep things where they ought to be? Just another "natural" fluke? Again, so much is glossed over as if it just "is".

I invite you to look at this.....

What could possibly move this little fish to produce something so perfect and intricate? Is this from gravity? What natural forces are at work here? Would land dwelling humans ever see this work of art if it were not for the ability to capture the scene on a camera and beam it to the world? How much can we gloss over as "natural" when everything in nature screams "DESIGN".

Here is a video on Birds of Paradise.

Listen as the evolutionists try to fit these birds into their 'belief system'. Its funny that the word "miraculous" comes into the conversation.....these birds truly are "miraculous". Their plumage and dancing are said to have evolved, but really when you consider that they are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, we have to ask why that is assumed? How much suggestion does it take with no real evidence that evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever took place?

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?

When did I assume that? We haven’t discussed the origin of physics. Let’s assume you’re right, and physics and the universe and simple life were all created by God. Now back to the point I was making about Evolution, which you seem to be avoiding.

I’m pointing out that the diversity and complexity and beauty of life could come from more simple non-beautiful things using simple rules. Fractals show a similar process. But you still haven’t acknowledged that my fractal is beautiful (and complex), or that it can come from a simple algorithm which is not beautiful, via a simple process (which is not intelligent but mathematical). (Please assume that mathematics and simple algorithms and simple rules were all created by God).

 

[ArtieE]

it is endless glazing over the questions that you pose to them to ask for themselves.

There are many interesting questions. The universe is about 13.8 billion years. Dinosaurs existed for between 165 and 177 million years. I wonder if the dinosaurs hadn't died out if they eventually had evolved brains big enough to start claiming that everything was designed and created by a god. What if there was a Deeje dinosaur saying "Look at that pretty bird! It must have been designed for us to enjoy!"?

Were your parents designed and created by a god? No.
Were your grandparents designed and created by a god? No.
Were your great-grandparents designed and created by a god? No.
Were your great-great-grandparents designed and created by a god? No.
At which point would the answer "yes" make any sense?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".
For those who believe in ID, they are inseparable.....one explains the other with no conflict or hesitation.



I know this is a long thread, but please understand that I have no difficulty at all accepting "adaptation" as part of the Creator's purpose in having diversity and variety within species. Science has no valid proof that adaptation leads to macro-changes in living things. It cannot prove ancestry or relationship....these are all assumed.

Since science wants to connect adaptation and macro-evolution as inseparably being the same essential process over a greater time period, it is a strange thing indeed that they can connect these two separate events when it suits them, but disconnect abiogenesis and evolution for the same reason.

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?
Do you see how much science glosses over as if these things are just "the way it is"? Do you never ask "why" it is the way it is?



Is gravity something we also take for granted as "natural"? What is gravity and how is it used in the universe to keep things where they ought to be? Just another "natural" fluke? Again, so much is glossed over as if it just "is".

I invite you to look at this.....

What could possibly move this little fish to produce something so perfect and intricate? Is this from gravity? What natural forces are at work here? Would land dwelling humans ever see this work of art if it were not for the ability to capture the scene on a camera and beam it to the world? How much can we gloss over as "natural" when everything in nature screams "DESIGN".

Here is a video on Birds of Paradise.

Listen as the evolutionists try to fit these birds into their 'belief system'. Its funny that the word "miraculous" comes into the conversation.....these birds truly are "miraculous". Their plumage and dancing are said to have evolved, but really when you consider that they are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, we have to ask why that is assumed? How much suggestion does it take with no real evidence that evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever took place?

It's problematic enough, when we take the simplest given examples of physical evolution- like a Giraffe's neck, and try to back it up with a viable mechanism, far less any direct evidence of the Giraffe's fabled half necked ancestor..

This pales in comparison with the problems of accidentally evolving a fully functional eye

But this in turn all pales in comparison, with the problem of animals attaining useful complex mental capacities, by accidental corruption of their DNA....

 

[metis]

It's problematic enough, when we take the simplest given examples of physical evolution- like a Giraffe's neck, and try to back it up with a viable mechanism, far less any direct evidence of the Giraffe's fabled half necked ancestor..

Well:
Giraffes, it turns out, are not the first species in their lineage to have a long neck — they just have the longest one. The species started off with a shorter neck, 7.5 million years ago, when it first appeared on the scene, after which the neck became even longer. But the lengthening began even earlier in the giraffe’s lineage, the fossil analysis revealed. The extinct Giraffa sivalensis shares some of the elongation features found in the modern giraffe. But even it wasn’t the beginning of the journey. Two other extinct creatures from the giraffe family Giraffidae, Samotherian and Palaeotragus, also show some of these features, as does the primitive giraffid Canthumeryx. But what was surprising was that the neck length appears to predate the giraffe family — an even earlier species, Prodremotherium, which disappeared some 23 million years ago, also showed neck elongation. -- How the giraffe got its long neck

Here's another site that covers this in even more detail: 7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".
For those who believe in ID, they are inseparable.....one explains the other with no conflict or hesitation.



I know this is a long thread, but please understand that I have no difficulty at all accepting "adaptation" as part of the Creator's purpose in having diversity and variety within species. Science has no valid proof that adaptation leads to macro-changes in living things. It cannot prove ancestry or relationship....these are all assumed.

Since science wants to connect adaptation and macro-evolution as inseparably being the same essential process over a greater time period, it is a strange thing indeed that they can connect these two separate events when it suits them, but disconnect abiogenesis and evolution for the same reason.

Let's stop there....."only physics" ? You assume that physics is another given? It just popped out of nowhere like life itself?
Do you see how much science glosses over as if these things are just "the way it is"? Do you never ask "why" it is the way it is?



Is gravity something we also take for granted as "natural"? What is gravity and how is it used in the universe to keep things where they ought to be? Just another "natural" fluke? Again, so much is glossed over as if it just "is".

I invite you to look at this.....

What could possibly move this little fish to produce something so perfect and intricate? Is this from gravity? What natural forces are at work here? Would land dwelling humans ever see this work of art if it were not for the ability to capture the scene on a camera and beam it to the world? How much can we gloss over as "natural" when everything in nature screams "DESIGN".

Here is a video on Birds of Paradise.

Listen as the evolutionists try to fit these birds into their 'belief system'. Its funny that the word "miraculous" comes into the conversation.....these birds truly are "miraculous". Their plumage and dancing are said to have evolved, but really when you consider that they are assumed to have descended from a common ancestor, we have to ask why that is assumed? How much suggestion does it take with no real evidence that evolution, on the scale suggested by science, ever took place?

Only from your end.

 

[ArtieE]

It's problematic enough, when we take the simplest given examples of physical evolution- like a Giraffe's neck, and try to back it up with a viable mechanism, far less any direct evidence of the Giraffe's fabled half necked ancestor..

Let's say a documentary film crew had the ability to film time going in reverse. Say they started with filming a living giraffe today and just filmed him moving backwards until we see him as a calf disappear into his mother. Then we follow the mother doing the same thing. And then her mother. At some point according to you we would see a mature giraffe being designed and created by a god. When exactly would that be?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's problematic enough, when we take the simplest given examples of physical evolution- like a Giraffe's neck, and try to back it up with a viable mechanism, far less any direct evidence of the Giraffe's fabled half necked ancestor..

This pales in comparison with the problems of accidentally evolving a fully functional eye

But this in turn all pales in comparison, with the problem of animals attaining useful complex mental capacities, by accidental corruption of their DNA....

Speaking of the giraffe neck ... have you ever wondered why the a giraffe's laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down it's long neck, then around the arteries of the heart, and then travels back up the long neck to the larynx? Why all the detours? Do you think this is evidence of good design?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Speaking of the giraffe neck ... have you ever wondered why the a giraffe's laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down it's long neck, then around the arteries of the heart, and then travels back up the long neck to the larynx? Why all the detours? Do you think this is evidence of good design?

By that rationale, if you have to drive a half mile past Taco Bell on the interstate, then take an exit and double back to get to it- this is evidence that the highway spontaneously created itself for no particular reason, no intelligent design involved.

Likewise nerves are bundled, just like electrical conduits, the vagus/ RLN system serves several organs en-route. And likewise most nerves don't take the most direct route, particularly where they must be flexible during development and use,

Open up your desktop computer and see how much 'bad design' is in there, among all the detours that circuit board buses and ribbon connectors take

If you think it would be 'better' design to have a single dedicated physical connection path, taking the shortest possible route between every possible combination of integrated parts- you should apply for a job at Dell to revolutionize the computing industry. But you would vastly increase the expense while reducing the reliability and flexibility of the design.


Our assessments of 'bad design' in nature are notoriously unreliable and naive. Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be great examples of 'bad design' before we understood the vital roles they play in supporting life on Earth.

But there will always be things we don't yet understand, that we can point to as 'bad design'

atheism of the gaps?

 

[Jose Fly]

It's problematic enough, when we take the simplest given examples of physical evolution- like a Giraffe's neck, and try to back it up with a viable mechanism, far less any direct evidence of the Giraffe's fabled half necked ancestor..

Creationists......they love to spout off on subjects they know little about.

How did the giraffe get its long neck? Clues now revealed by new genome sequencing

 

[SkepticThinker]

By that rationale, if you have to drive a half mile past Taco Bell on the interstate, then take an exit and double back to get to it- this is evidence that the highway spontaneously created itself for no particular reason, no intelligent design involved.

Likewise nerves are bundled, just like electrical conduits, the vagus/ RLN system serves several organs en-route. And likewise most nerves don't take the most direct route, particularly where they must be flexible during development and use,

Open up your desktop computer and see how much 'bad design' is in there, among all the detours that circuit board buses and ribbon connectors take

If you think it would be 'better' design to have a single dedicated physical connection path, taking the shortest possible route between every possible combination of integrated parts- you should apply for a job at Dell to revolutionize the computing industry. But you would vastly increase the expense while reducing the reliability and flexibility of the design.

It's like the cable guy coming over to your house to install internet cable but instead of just stringing it through the wall directly to your computer, he first winds it around the fence pole in the backyard and back through the house up the attic and back down to your computer in the basement. Would you think that was a bad design or a good one?

What we see in the giraffe neck is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution is an accurate description of reality. It is not what we would expect to find if it were carefully designed by some super intelligent deity.

Our assessments of 'bad design' in nature are notoriously unreliable and naive. Volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes used to be great examples of 'bad design' before we understood the vital roles they play in supporting life on Earth.

But there will always be things we don't yet understand, that we can point to as 'bad design'

atheism of the gaps?

Your assessments of "good design" are spot on though, right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's like the cable guy coming over to your house to install internet cable but instead of just stringing it through the wall directly to your computer, he first winds it around the fence pole in the backyard and back through the house up the attic and back down to your computer in the basement. Would you think that was a bad design or a good one?

What we see in the giraffe neck is exactly what we would expect to find if evolution is an accurate description of reality. It is not what we would expect to find if it were carefully designed by some super intelligent deity.

I'd think he's probably paid by the hour!

But by the analogy, as I said, the cable guy routed the cable past some neighbors first, the bundle serves several subscribers in one package rather than having to run a separate cable for each

that doesn't reflect what we'd expect from random chance to me!

Your assessments of "good design" are spot on though, right?

thank you!

But they are not my assessments really, the pattern just tends to be- that what was once considered 'bad design' turns out to be extremely elegant design we just didn't get

As a caveman's assessment of a smartphone might be; 'that's the worst spearhead design I ever saw!'

 

[gnostic]

It seems you are now talking about the origin of life, which has nothing to do with evolution and is not part of the Evolution / Creation subject.

It always amazes me when people treat these as separate subjects......to me how life began is the more important question because it answers all the rest. To separate them just allows evolutionists to disavow any connection to that more important question. How life changed pales into insignificance by comparison IMO.

The minute you mention abiogenesis, watch the evolutionists duck for cover.

I agree it is more important how life begun. I also agree that we don’t have the answer. But I am not separating that from Evolution. It IS a separate thing by definition.

Bingo-

The origin of life certainly was not irrelevant to it's nature for Darwin, the whole point of ToE was to provide an explanation for all life without creative input, cells were mere fuzzy blobs in microscopes at the time, but even then- he acknowledged that if these could not be accounted for by natural processes, it was a major hole in the plot. He was in many ways far less dogmatic about his own theory than his followers 150 years on

I thought the point was to explain the diversity of life, not the origin. Evolution is about change, not origin. Wikipedia calls it "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". So it agrees with my basic understanding.

That is very convenient though, don't you think? Why is it by definition a separate thing? Only science sees it as "separate".

Sorry, Guy Threepwood and Deeje.

Even after all these years, you are both still are incapable of understanding the differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis, which does speak well your formal education in biology-related science.

Abiogenesis is a field of study that tried to replicate the origin of life through turning non-living matters, like inorganic chemicals into living matters. Hence converting basic chemical into biological matters.

One the most basic elements of living matter that biochemists are trying to recreate is amino acid (NH2 + COOH), a compound found in proteins. Proteins like nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA) are found in genes, tissues, etc. In metabolism, proteins are used to cause catalysting chemical reactions (hence enzymes). In genetics, proteins are important in causing replicating DNA.

The importance of amino acids in proteins, is that different proteins can only be distinguished from each other, by how the amino acids are sequenced.

Now, amino acid may not seem much to either of you, scientists should start with something very basic, before experimenting something more complex.

Evolution is actually all biological, requiring the parent to pass on genes or genetic characteristics to the child. Changes in genes required generations of parents and offspring.

In Abiogenesis, there are no hereditary genes being pass from parent to offspring. So there are no ancestors and descendants in the origin of life.

Evolution covered changes to life, from any one of less than half-a-dozen possible mechanisms (eg natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, etc), and it required passing on the genes. In abiogenesis, there are no passing of genes.

Evolution also don’t require to focus on first life, it just to focus, where and when the changes had occurred.

For instance, WHEN did the polar bears diverge from brown bears? And WHAT causes the changes between the sister-species and HOW did it come about? And WHAT changes or differences between the two (genetics or physical characteristics)?

Here, in this example of the two bear species, we are only focusing on the changes to bears, about 70,000 years ago, not on the very first primordial life, some billions of years ago. There are no need for any biologist to go that far back time with evolution.

 

[Deeje]

For the sake of argument, when I refer to evolution, I'm talking about evolution from simple multi-cellular organisms. Chemical Evolution is not the same as the Evolution that most people are referring to, which is defined as biological. The 'likewise' part does not make sense, because these 2 processes are not alike.

Funny you should mention that......adaptation and macro-evolution are not the same process either, yet scientists insist on implying that they are the same process. They have actual evidence for adaptation, but none at all (beyond speculation) for a complete change in any taxonomic family.

Well:
Giraffes, it turns out, are not the first species in their lineage to have a long neck — they just have the longest one. The species started off with a shorter neck, 7.5 million years ago, when it first appeared on the scene, after which the neck became even longer. But the lengthening began even earlier in the giraffe’s lineage, the fossil analysis revealed. The extinct Giraffa sivalensis shares some of the elongation features found in the modern giraffe. But even it wasn’t the beginning of the journey. Two other extinct creatures from the giraffe family Giraffidae, Samotherian and Palaeotragus, also show some of these features, as does the primitive giraffid Canthumeryx. But what was surprising was that the neck length appears to predate the giraffe family — an even earlier species, Prodremotherium, which disappeared some 23 million years ago, also showed neck elongation. -- How the giraffe got its long neck

Here's another site that covers this in even more detail: 7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

From your last link.....

"The researchers are calling the remains of this ancient beast true "transitional" fossils, not only closing an evolutionary gap in the rise of Earth's tallest animals, but also providing concrete evidence of how one creature evolved into another.

"We actually have an animal whose neck is intermediate [in length] — it's a real missing link," said Nikos Solounias, a professor of anatomy at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) College of Osteopathic Medicine and the lead researcher on the study.

The creature in question — Samotherium major —lived during the Late Miocene [11.6 million to 5.3 million years ago] in the forested areas of Eurasia, ranging from Italy to China......

On average, giraffes had 6.5-foot-long (2 meters) necks. In comparison, the necks of S. major were about 3.2 feet (1 m) long, and the okapi necks extended about 1.9 feet (60 centimeters)."

This is Eurasia....(Google pic from Wiki)

So......

Let's get this straight......where was this 'missing link' was found? How many giraffes exist in this area of the world in any historical recollection?

Its neck was how long? Its ancestor's neck was 1.9 feet and this one was 3.2 feet? How much difference is that exactly? 1.3 feet.
A modern giraffe's neck is 6.5 feet long....3.3 feet longer than Samotherium major.

This is an illustration of what science imagines the evolutionary process to look like. (Google pics)

Here is some other information on giraffe evolution that I thought was interesting....




"An illustration of neck elongation and shortening within the giraffe family.
Image credit: Nikos Solounias / Melinda Danowitz."

"Dr Solounias and his colleagues at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine studied 71 fossils of nine extinct and two living species in the giraffe family.

“We also found that the most primitive giraffe already started off with a slightly elongated neck,” said co-author Melinda Danowitz.

“The lengthening started before the giraffe family was even created 16 million years ago.”

But the main discovery came after the scientists analyzed anatomical features of the various fossils and compared them to the evolutionary tree.

They found the cranial end of the vertebra stretched initially around 7 million years ago in an extinct relative of giraffe known as Samotherium.

That was followed by a second stage of elongation on the back or caudal portion around one million years ago.

As the modern day giraffe’s neck was getting longer, the neck of another member of the giraffe family, the okapi (Okapia johnstoni), was shortening. The species is the only other living member of the giraffe family.

“Yet, rather than evolving a long neck, this species is one of four with a secondarily shortened neck, placing it on a different evolutionary pathway,” Dr Danowitz said.

Fossils Shed New Light on Evolution of Elongated Giraffe Neck | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

Here is an artist's impression of what these creatures looked like side by side.....(Google pic)

Does science know that.....

1) these animals are descended from one another as opposed to being separate animals who could have been individually created millenniums apart?

2) Do they really know what these prehistoric creatures even looked like? Without their diagrams and illustrations, how convincing would their explanations be?

Now, in reading these descriptions of how giraffes evolved, one thing I believe is clear.......not only have they guessed ancestry but made wild assumptions about fossils that appear to be many millions of years apart. They assume that the common ancestor existed some 25 million years ago and evolved into a larger version some 9 million years later. Then, for some unknown reason, this creature "branched" into two separate lines, one leading to a huge animal called a sivatherium which supposedly became a smaller modern okapi. (Right side of the above illustration)
Actual evidence for this transformation = zero.

But wait.....the other line somehow transformed itself into half a giraffe, 9 million years later. Yet in only 7 million years, the modern giraffe somehow increased its neck to double the size and its leg length remarkably as well.
Actual evidence for this transformation.= zero.

All their "evidence" relies on one factor......you have to "believe" that evolution actually happened to believe their story.

I don't believe their story at all and I smile when I see the evidence presented as "concrete". If my house was built on "concrete" like this, it would have fallen down decades ago.

People need to know what is presented to them and what real evidence they have for their conclusions. It is a house built on nothing but science's imagination....not on any real substantive evidence. Its all smoke and mirrors.