Darwinism Evolution Evolutionary biology Intelligent Design

Giraffe’s adaptations point to design

Spread the love

DOL COVER special offer.jpg In connection with a sale on The Design of Life (Dembski and Wells), an excerpt from Evolution News and Views:

The giraffe is an integrated adaptational package whose parts are carefully coordinated with one another. To fit successfully into its environmental niche, the giraffe presumably needed long legs. But in possessing long legs, it also needed a long neck. And to use its long neck, further adaptations were necessary. When a giraffe stands in its normal upright posture, the blood pressure in the neck arteries will be highest at the base of the neck and lowest in the head. The blood pressure generated by the heart must be extremely high to pump blood to the head. This, in turn, requires a very strong heart. But when the giraffe bends its head to the ground it encounters a potentially dangerous situation. By lowering its head between its front legs, it puts a great strain on the blood vessels of the neck and head. The blood pressure together with the weight of the blood in the neck could produce so much pressure in the head that, without safeguards, the blood vessels would burst.

Such safeguards, however, are in place. The giraffe’s adaptational package includes a coordinated system of blood pressure control. Pressure sensors along the neck’s arteries monitor the blood pressure and can signal activation of other mechanisms to counter any increase in pressure as the giraffe drinks or grazes. Contraction of the artery walls, the ability to shunt arterial blood flow bypassing the brain, and a web of small blood vessels between the arteries and the brain (the rete mirabile, or “marvelous net”) all control the blood pressure in the giraffe’s head. The giraffe’s adaptations do not occur in isolation but presuppose other adaptations that all must be carefully coordinated into a single, highly specialized organism.

In short, the giraffe represents not a mere collection of isolated traits but a package of interrelated traits. It exhibits a top-down design that integrates all its parts into a single functional system. More.

In any field other than Darwinism (= current evolutionary biology), the correct term for all that is engineering. We do it all the time with computers. But the Darwinians are permanently stuck at the level of just-so stories (= How the giraffe got its long neck” – See Claim-of-the-day files for current trivial explanation)

It would be fun to hear Darwinians explain the evolution of the tablet with no reference to design or purpose. Oh wait, they did that with the electric car, and thought they were being very clever indeed.

Note: For a limited time, you can buy The Design of Life for $10.

See also: The Giraffe: A model of intelligent design (Vincent Torley)

W.E. Loennig’s “The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe,” Part II Granville Sewell

and

Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (William Dembski)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Giraffe’s adaptations point to design

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    There was no giraffe on the ark. it would of been instead a okapi type creature. Likewise long necks was found in camels, post flood, in North America.WIKI.
    So a yec must say that these adaptions came from existing genetic ability. So a triggering mechanism pulled out of the genes the long neck and the helps.
    its a part of the creators creation to have creation adapt for survival and success.
    Not from impossible small steps but a real operation of change.
    just as human colour change came sudden;y and not by steps.

  2. 2
    sean samis says:

    Assuming, only for the sake of argument that:

    1. that giraffes were designed, and
    2. creationists are practicing actual science;

    … then what will creationist scientists do NEXT to study the origin of giraffes?

    A. Are creation scientists trying to determine how giraffes were designed? How are they doing this?

    By this I am asking how the designer determined what physiological changes were needed to make a viable giraffe and what genetic or other biological changes were needed to effectuate these physiological changes.

    B. Are creation scientists trying to determine how the first giraffes were manufactured and assembled? How are they doing this?

    C. Are creation scientists trying to confirm their theories about A or B? How are they doing this?

    D. How does the conclusion that giraffes were designed help us understand the biology of giraffes?

    sean s.

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    sean samis
    The thread means design is demanded for the full operation of a giraffe and its impossible to be from selection on mutations in pulling it all together.
    this is true.
    I think however the genes do have a innate ability to pull things together.
    The giraffe neck is not a big deal. A camel had the same next and some dinos did. They were not created with the necks but adapted them by way of triggering genetic mechanisms.
    Creationism needs and welcomes mechanisms.
    Just not impossible ones made up centuries ago to fight genesis and figure it out. So not well done.

  4. 4
    sean samis says:

    Robert Byers;

    I’m not sure most contributors to this site would agree with you that the giraffe was only partially designed and the rest was evolution; but assuming that, what are creation scientists doing to determine how much of the giraffe genome was designed and what is the result of evolutionary mechanisms?

    What does your design theory add to our knowledge about giraffes?

    My questions assume (only for the sake of argument) my givens in comment #2.

    sean s.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    sean samis:

    Assuming, only for the sake of argument that:

    creationists are practicing actual science

    Creationists created science.

    The fact that you either do not know this or willfully choose to disregard that fact is telling.

    Are you ignorant, or lying? Perhaps both.

  6. 6
    Robert Byers says:

    seam samis.
    Its an obscure subject and creationists are not checking into the dna to determine its design elements relative to adaptionist elements.
    Creationist are to take on evolutionist conclusions by pointing out why they are wrong.
    Seeing design in creatures is a excellent point for us and not seeing evotion steps as possible is a great point for us.

    In fact i find the evolutionist stuff on giraffes wrong because other creatures had long long necks too.
    the famous one was the camel . I’m sure its long neck had like principals with the giraffe long neck. Yet it was just a camel who got big. no big deal.
    So we can conclude the mechanisms for it are innate in the genes. however hidden from us.

  7. 7
    sean samis says:

    Robert Byers;

    Re:

    creationists are not checking into the dna to determine its design elements relative to adaptionist elements.

    If this is true, it supports the claims that creationists are NOT scientists; a scientist checks into their own claims.

    Re:

    Creationist are to take on evolutionist conclusions by pointing out why they are wrong.

    Scientists don’t just point out that some theory is wrong; science looks for what’s right, not what’s wrong. Again, this indicates that creationism is really not a science; scientists demonstrate the truth of their own claims.

    Re:

    Seeing design in creatures is a excellent point for us and not seeing evotion [sic] steps as possible is a great point for us.

    You should look up the term pareidolia; seeing something and demonstrating that something is true are VASTLY DIFFERENT.

    You think you “see design” but a scientist substantiates what they claim to see; it seems again that creationists are not engaged in science.

    sean s.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    sean samis
    Science is a verb and not a noun. All that there is IS people figuring things out. They use a high standard of investigation before drawing conclusions. this is what science can claim to be. Its not a body of knowledge or have a agenda.
    SO in origin issues ID/YEC thinkers investigate subjects using a high standard of investigation, (except yEC in using the bible for conclusions but otherwise uses methodology to debunk the other side).
    So in studying a subject it can be judged if its a scientific study. One can discover design evidence and find impossible non design claims.
    In pointing out things are wrong one is doing science. Thats what peerr review is meant to do.
    YEC/ID thinkers do science as much , more, then opponents. origin subjects are difficult to do science on. Its not like physics or biology.or non science subjects like math.

  9. 9
    sean samis says:

    Robert Byer;

    Can you name a peer-reviewed science journal or site that publishes creationist science with the same standards and accountability of other science journals?

    Sites or journals where original research and experimental results, replication results, and detailed examination of theories can be found?

    sean s.

Leave a Reply