The Neck of the Giraffe

@kellyjay said
No such thing as an example of "undesigned" creature, the notion of design or
accidental formation is the topic of debate/discussion. Seeing a creature living
doesn't mean it can used to prove one opinion over the other just by it being
there. If any deviation occurs within species anywhere large or small, they could
have a huge impact upon several key systems. The whole ...[text shortened]... ems at once, yet managed to keep everything in a fine tuned state
and all of that done haphazardly?

@kellyjay said
No such thing as an example of "undesigned" creature, the notion of design or
accidental formation is the topic of debate/discussion. Seeing a creature living
doesn't mean it can used to prove one opinion over the other just by it being
there. If any deviation occurs within species anywhere large or small, they could
have a huge impact upon several key systems. The whole ...[text shortened]... ems at once, yet managed to keep everything in a fine tuned state
and all of that done haphazardly?

@chaney3 said
There's a quote out there that goes something like:

"Life originating from nothing is equivalent to a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functioning jumbo jet when it has passed".

Life did not come from nothing.

@wolfgang59 said
If the giraffe is designed then it was designed either
by a completely incompetent designer
or
by a very deceitful designer.

.... and I am not suggesting "giant leaps" ... that is the article Goad is referencing.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A friend here recently shared the following thoughts with me which I thought warranted a thread of its own. (He may appear to contribute, but won't name him in case he doesn't).

'The Neck of the Giraffe' (written by Francis Hitching) postulates that evolution of species has not and certainly has not always been a slow, gradual and incremental thing, but rather has ...[text shortened]... s.
It's an interesting theory, at least, and purports to explain huge gaps in the fossil record. '

@kellyjay said
Could you build one, or the writer of Goad's article? If not I say the incompetent
designer is a mote point. I'm not sure why anyone would think if a designer did
do the work, why would "deceitful" come into play? I hope they wouldn't say
that just because they didn't like the design! Granted even here for some, just
saying you are not in agreement with them, that is all ...[text shortened]... how the one
projecting their views on how and why it became a reality is in error for their stance.

@wolfgang59 said
I can't make sense of this.
Try one point at a time.

I had once heard the argument from a OEC or YEC (I do not know which) which went along the lines of... the process of the creation of the Earth made things appear to be entirely "condensed" in any attempt to carbon date it because of the amount of fire used in creation. It was simply an issue of not having equipment that could accurately assess what was going on.

It was intriguing to me.

I do not believe it... but the ability to account for these sorts of things has kind of blown my mind.

I take people more seriously now, regardless of their background or the popularly perceived absurdity of what they are saying.

@kellyjay said
How or why would a designer be "incompetent" for its design, isn't it living, and
isn't reproducing over time? Shouldn't that be the standard of success not failure?

@kellyjay said
How or why would a designer be called "very deceitful", wouldn't it be a more
accurate description to call the on lookers misguided in their understanding?

@wolfgang59 said
The giraffe is successful in that it survives and out-competes any similar animals.

That does not mean it has been designed well!
It is just the most successful accident.

@wolfgang59 said
To every biologist the giraffe is "badly designed".
Conclusion:
1. It is NOT designed.
2. The Designer is incompetent.
3. The Designer wants us to think he is incompetent or non-existent.

No other options.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, that's the usual understanding, but I quite like the notion that, 'cataclysmic geological events may have been responsible, which have caused mass extinctions, and have 'shocked' the collective gene pool into producing offspring which don't resemble their parents.' I also rather like the term 'hopeful monsters.'

Have added that book to my reading list. (Especially now that I know it irritates Becker).

@suzianne said
Since I do believe in a Creator God, I support the scientifically supported idea of evolution as being just one tool in the Creator's toolbox. This theory you put forth follows my own view of evolution, which supports occasional 'tweaks' from the hand of a Creator to keep things moving towards His goal.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Many Christians view evolution as a threat to 'creation' but it actually does lend more to a devoted deity, where creation wasn't just a one-off event but an ongoing process. In their pursuit to protect (the clearly analogous) idea of Adam and Eve they miss the far more significant possibility that God created humans through the long and attentive process of evolution.