From The Scientist: Genome Reveals Clues to Giraffes’ “Blatantly Strange” Body Shape

_{Eric Hedin

May 27, 2022

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

An updated giraffe genome, published March 17, 2021 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates a “blatantly strange body architecture.”

Author, Amanda Heidt writes…

With their long necks, giraffes are a poster child for evolutionary oddities, but scientists know very little about the genetic underpinnings of such an extreme adaptation. An updated giraffe genome, published March 17 in Science Advances, reveals new insights into how the species accommodates what Rasmus Heller, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen and an author on the new study, calls a “blatantly strange body architecture.” Giraffe’s bones grow faster than any other animal, for instance, and the blood pressure required to pump blood up its six-foot neck would be fatal to humans.

Unlocking giraffeness

When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes.

giraffe, genetics & genomics, CRISPR, gene editing, genome, physiology, hypertension, bone growth, techniques, mouse model

A functional analysis of these genes showed that they are most often associated with growth and development, nervous and visual systems, circadian rhythms, and blood pressure regulation, all areas in which the giraffe differs from other ruminants. As a consequence of their tall stature, for example, giraffes must maintain a blood pressure that is roughly 2.5 times higher than that of humans in order to pump blood up to their brain. In addition, giraffes have sharp eyesight for scanning the horizon, and because their strange bodies make it difficult for them to stand quickly, they sleep lightly, often standing up and for only minutes at a time, likely a result of changes during evolution to genes that regulate circadian rhythms.

Within those hundreds of genes, FGFRL1 stood out. In addition to being the giraffe’s most divergent gene from other ruminants’, its seven amino acid substitutions are unique to giraffes. In humans, this gene appears to be involved in cardiovascular development and bone growth, leading the researchers to hypothesize that it might also play a role in the giraffe’s unique adaptations to a highly vertical life.
The Scientist

Note that seven amino acid substitutions needed to form a unique, functional gene is highly unlikely to occur naturally. Consider the following quote from Michael Behe:

Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria…. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations [amino acid substitutions]…)
Evolution News–Behe

Repeatedly, further research in a given field tends to reveal greater evidence for intelligent design, not less.

Comments

chuckdarwin/ 25 No.ET_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

ET/24 Answer me this question: is the end point for your “telic processes” man as he exists today?chuckdarwin_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Chuck- That "something else" has been explained- TELIC PROCESSES.
Who, when, how or why that design came to be is outside the scope of ID.
Yes, they are. But ID does NOT prevent anyone from trying to answer those questions. It's just that those answers are NOT required to determine (intelligent) design exists and then study it. That said, the authors of "the Privileged Planet" says the why was a universe designed for scientific discovery. And Lee Spetner posited a mechanism of "built-in responses to environmental cues", as a mechanism for adaptations. Yours is the mechanistic scenario, ever since Darwin who claimed to have a MECHANISM capable of producing the appearance of design without the need of an intelligent designer. Yet you and yours don't have any idea as to the how. You spew random mutations, natural selection, drift, blah, blah, blah, but no specifics. It's all done via promissory notes.ET_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

FH/5
Now I understand that ID proponents claim evolutionary processes are impossible or limited. Therefore they must think something else is the explanation. What is that?
It will be the proverbial cold day in hell before you get an answer to your question on this blog. However, I will promise you that you will get endless hours of amusement (or frustration)trying to glean an answer to your question off the blog. Let me give you just one quick example from this very comment chain:
PS: from an engineering point of view it is clear, that giraffe was designed the way it looks. The whole body has to be in balance. That includes a proper length of legs as well. All four legs. You can’t have short legs with such a long neck. Otherwise giraffes could not move let alone run. Would flip over and then die = NO EVOLUTION. NO GIRAFFES. (emphasis added)
"Designed" is as close as you will get here. Who, when, how or why that design came to be is outside the scope of ID. One should add that the giraffe's legs also must be just long enough to reach the ground, no more, no less. And that applies to all four legs.....chuckdarwin_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

ET, really!? So, in addition to my not having read the paper, trollbots automatically pretend to be familiar with the contents and author(s) of any papers used against them. Very disingenuous and further reason not to feed them! Thanks! -QQuerius_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Yes, but Q, the paper was authored by evolutionists trying to refute Dr. Behe.ET_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

ET @ 18, Let me suggest not to feed the trollbots. Notice that the "[The debunked]" was inserted with ZERO supporting evidence and ZERO new information except for negation. The formats of trollbots can take many forms. For example: 1. That study was debunked years ago. 2. The author of the study is a quack. 3. This flawed study has been touted many times by people like you. 4. The study is completely irrelevant to the point. 5. The study is considered by authoritative sources to be fringe. 6. Of course, you'd bring up that tired old study. Everyone knows that you can't find any others. 7. Only a total ignoramus would try to use that study. 8. I bet you can't even find five studies that came to the same conclusion. etc. etc. etc. Trollbots can cycle endlessly through these pseudo-responses and more like them. No synapses were fired in their posting. It's all automatic in some cases or cut and paste from a kit in other cases. Naturally, we'll get a cut-and-paste response challenging what I wrote, so let me just say, "If it quacks like a duck . . ." -QQuerius_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @17, Great point! Arthur C. Clarke’s Three Laws state
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (1968)
Considering Clarke’s third law along with your observation as an engineer, I’d add the following: 4. Any process ascribed to nearly infinite random interactions and probabilities over a nearly infinite amount of time as filtered by a randomly generated environment on the presumption that entropy is conserved somewhere else is also indistinguishable from magic. Quite obviously to an engineer or architect, random interactions over infinite amounts of time cannot result in something that might be considered sufficiently advanced alien technology. It also occurs to me that only an infinite universe can accommodate a large enough “entropy sink” to offset a decrease in entropy sufficient to create the information and complexity of a cell. Some years ago, I suggested that finding three lone rocks randomly stacked in a desert (i.e. singly, not in a pile of rocks) is of sufficient complexity that even given 4.5 billion years of earthquakes, it's an extremely unlikely find. Someone with direct experience in that environment said that he'd never seen even two single rocks stacked this way. -QQuerius_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Earth to JHolo- How was that paper debunked? It was openly touted when evos thought it was evidence against Dr Behe's claims. So, clearly you have dishonesty issues or you are just ignorant. Either way you are a loser.ET_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

LCD @13
DNA is just a box full with many DVD-RW. Whoever reads ,indexes,edits and manages those DVD-RW has much more complexity than DNA itself.
I, as an engineer, i agree with that. There has to be something more that manages all the processes inside the cell. In any case, when you consider, that these things have been running for millions of years without any outside intervention, fully automated ... The cell is an engineering marvel, something beyond our comprehension... and i really doubt, that humans will ever understand what is going on ...martin_r_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

ET: [The debunked] peer-reviewed paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” says the evolution of the giraffe via blind and mindless processes is impossible.
JHolo_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Fred Hickson:
Now I understand that ID proponents claim evolutionary processes are impossible or limited.
Wrong again. ID proponents claim that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are limited. And science demonstrates that they are. The peer-reviewed paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" says the evolution of the giraffe via blind and mindless processes is impossible. But you are proud to equivocate and obfuscate.ET_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

The giraffe is often used as the poster child of genetic evolution and as such the average person nods. The neck gets a little bit longer each millennium as it seeks higher food sources. But it is just the opposite. As some implied where are the other species with long necks? Why just one species? It is actually a disproof of natural Evolution even without the gene problem.jerry_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 And as Paul Davies stated, “DNA is not a blueprint for an organism,,,, Rather, DNA is a (mostly) passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA,”
DNA is just a box full with many DVD-RW. Whoever reads ,indexes,edits and manages those DVD-RW has much more complexity than DNA itself.Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on our mathematics to tell us that a massive amount of immaterial information must somehow be coming into a developing human embryo, (‘from the outside by some ‘non-material’ method’), during embryological development. Advances in quantum biology have now proven, contrary to what was thought to be possible just a few short years ago, that quantum entanglement and/or quantum information, is ubiquitous within molecular biology. As Dr Rieper remarks in the following video, ‘practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it’
“What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.” Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176
And as the following article states, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and “the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
And as this follow up article stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
The absolutely devastating thing for Darwinian materialists in finding quantum information to be ubiquitous with biological life is that it takes a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain quantum correlations in the first place,. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum coherence, quantum information, and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.
“hidden variables don’t exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that?” per Jimfit https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/quantum-physicist-david-bohm-on-why-there-cannot-be-a-theory-of-everything/#comment-662358
Christians, on the other hand, readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, cannot be created nor destroyed, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of theological, even personal, significance. As Jesus once asked his disciples along with a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”
Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul?
Of supplemental note, long before the ubiquitous, and immaterial, quantum and classical information within biology was even known about, Christians were steadfastly claiming that life has a ‘beyond space and time’ author,
Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
bornagain77_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Moreover, the following article notes that “it is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment.’
Criticality in morphogenesis – September 17, 2013 Excerpt: In many regards, a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment. While it had been hoped that concepts borrowed from statistical mechanics or the ideas of self-organized criticality could help to create some kind of physics-based theory of development, much of what has been done lies only at the level of metaphor. In a paper just released to ArXiv, William Bialek and his colleagues from Princeton University, have taken their search for the signature of criticality in a more specific direction. They looked at a particular set of transcription factors in Drosophila embryos which control spatiotemporal development. By analyzing fluctuations in the expression levels of these so-called gap genes, they found evidence for critical (fine) tuning in this particular network. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-criticality-morphogenesis.html
To further drive the point home that the basic form of any particular organism is not reducible to any material particulars of an organism, in the following article it is noted that, Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern.
What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott – Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: “Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements… take unique meaning from their context.[3]”,,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean
As the preceding experiments, and many more experiments like these, have made clear, ‘biological form’ simply cannot be reduced to mutations to DNA, nor can it be reduced to any other material particulars, (i..e. proteins, carbohydrates, etc.. etc..), that Darwinists may try to invoke. And this failure of the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinists to explain biological form, (and the failure of reductive materialists to explain any other type of ‘form’ in the universe for that matter), occurs at a much lower level than DNA itself. Specifically, in the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.” http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
Moreover Jonathan Wells, in the following video, after demonstrating that the Central Dogma of molecular biology, (which states (in effect) that DNA, makes RNA, makes protein, makes us), is incorrect at every step,
Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484
,,, after demonstrating that the Central Dogma of molecular biology is incorrect at every step, Dr. Wells, (who specializes in embryology by the way), then, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, and as cells ‘transdifferentiate’, information must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method. And just how much information is coming into a developing embryo ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method? Well, when working from a thermodynamic perspective, it is found that the ‘positional information’ that is inherent in a ‘simple’ bacterium is on the order of 10^12 bits,
Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit
,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” – Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Thus since bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells. https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html
And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells within the average human body,
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016 Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533
Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of all the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of 'positional' information that is somehow coming into the developing embryo of a single human body, “from the outside by some ‘non-material’ method’. As the following video states that “There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer, that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.”
“There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe.” Will (Quantum) Teleportation Ever Be Possible? – video – 2013 https://youtu.be/yfePpMTbFYY?t=76
Verse:
Psalm 139:13-14 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
bornagain77_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

And as Paul Davies stated, “DNA is not a blueprint for an organism,,,, Rather, DNA is a (mostly) passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA,”
(Paul) Davies And Walker On Origin Of Life: Life As Information – March 7, 2020 Excerpt: However, the genome is only a small part of the story. DNA is not a blueprint for an organism:1 no information is actively processed by DNA alone [17]. Rather, DNA is a (mostly) passive repository for transcription of stored data into RNA, some (but by no means all) of which goes on to be translated into proteins. The biologically relevant information stored in DNA therefore has very little to do with its specific chemical nature (beyond the fact that it is a digital linear polymer). https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/davies-and-walker-on-origin-of-life-life-as-information/
And as Antony Jose stated, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,”,,, “It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.”,,,
DNA may not be life’s instruction book—just a jumbled list of ingredients – Kimbra Cutlip, University of Maryland – APRIL 22, 2020 Excerpt: The common view of heredity is that all information passed down from one generation to the next is stored in an organism’s DNA. But Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, disagrees. In two new papers, Jose argues that DNA is just the ingredient list, not the set of instructions used to build and maintain a living organism.,,, ,,, “DNA cannot be seen as the ‘blueprint’ for life,” Jose said. “It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times.” ,,, In addition, scientists are unable to determine the complex shape of an organ such as an eye, or that a creature will have eyes at all, by reading the creature’s DNA. These fundamental aspects of anatomy are dictated by something outside of the DNA. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-dna-life-bookjust-jumbled-ingredients.html
And indeed, the entire concept of 'biological form', and/or a genetic blueprint, is simply antithetical to the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution. As the following article points out, the reductive materialism of Darwinism actually “abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.”,,,, and for Darwinists there is “no immaterial, immutable (human) form”, “only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.”
Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no answer for the following question,,, " the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
Yet ID proponents can readily answer that question. Specifically, ID proponents hold that it is immaterial information that explains "why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death." In the following paper, Dr Andy C. McIntosh, who is professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that it is non-material information that is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. As well, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter ‘resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions’.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh – 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008 "Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be (immaterial) information." Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing”
And it is fairly easy to (further) empirically demonstrate that biological form cannot be reduced to DNA, (nor can it be reduced to any other material particulars in biology that Darwinists may try to invoke). In the following, fairly astonishing, experiment, a bacterium, ‘after shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces,,, miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,’
Extreme Genome Repair – 2009 Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319128/
And this seemingly ‘miraculous’ ability of D. radiodurans to reassemble its shattered genome is not just some freak of nature, but this ‘miraculous’ ability is now shown to be an inherent, and common, feature of e-coli in general.
In the lab, scientists coax E. coli to resist radiation damage – March 17, 2014 Excerpt: ,,, John R. Battista, a professor of biological sciences at Louisiana State University, showed that E. coli could evolve to resist ionizing radiation by exposing cultures of the bacterium to the highly radioactive isotope cobalt-60. “We blasted the cultures until 99 percent of the bacteria were dead. Then we’d grow up the survivors and blast them again. We did that twenty times,” explains Cox. The result were E. coli capable of enduring as much as four orders of magnitude more ionizing radiation, making them similar to Deinococcus radiodurans, a desert-dwelling bacterium found in the 1950s to be remarkably resistant to radiation. That bacterium is capable of surviving more than one thousand times the radiation dose that would kill a human. http://www.news.wisc.edu/22641
As well, in the following study, “researchers implanted human embryonic neuronal cells into a mouse embryo”.,,, Yet, “the human neurons, despite having human DNA, had a mouse morphology”. If DNA really ruled morphology, (as Darwinists have presupposed), we would have expected a human morphology.
If DNA really rules (morphology), why did THIS happen? – April 2014 Excerpt: Researchers implanted human embryonic neuronal cells into a mouse embryo. Mouse and human neurons have distinct morphologies (shapes). Because the human neurons feature human DNA, they should be easy to identify. Which raises a question: Would the human neurons implanted in developing mouse brain have a mouse or a human morphology? Well, the answer is, the human neurons had a mouse morphology. They could be distinguished from the mouse ones only by their human genetic markers. If DNA really ruled, we would expect a human morphology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-dna-really-rules-why-did-this-happen/
Along that same line is this tidbit from a UD blogger
“Last year I had a fair chunk of my nose removed in skin cancer surgery (Mohs). The surgeon took flesh from a nearby area to fill in the large hole he’d made. The pictures of it were scary. But in the healing process the replanted cells somehow ‘knew’ how to take a different shape appropriate for the new location so that the nose now looks remarkably natural. The doctor said he could take only half the credit because the cells somehow know how to change form for a different location (though they presumably still follow the same DNA code) . — I’m getting the feeling that we’ve been nearly as reductionist in the 20-21st century as Darwin and his peers were when they viewed cells as little blobs of jelly.” - leodp – UD blogger
bornagain77_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

As to:
Genome Reveals Clues to Giraffes’ “Blatantly Strange” Body Shape - Mar 19, 2021 Excerpt: When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/genome-reveals-clues-to-giraffes-blatantly-strange-body-shape--68567
On top of the mathematical impossibility of Darwinian processes to ever be able to explain the origin of "almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes",,,
More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes,, in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/ Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011 Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/?
,,, On top of that mathematical impossibility for Darwinian processes, the “Blatantly Strange” Body Shape of the giraffe, and/or any other creature, is also forever beyond the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. Specifically, when Darwinists first formulated the modern synthesis, they excluded 'biological form' from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’
On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020) Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3
Needless to say, excluding 'biological form' from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis is NOT a minor omission on their part. Yet, in spite of the fact that Darwinists themselves excluded biological form from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’, Darwinists still assume, (apparently without any justification whatsoever), that changes to DNA have the potential to eventually change the basic biological form and/or body plan of any given species into a brand new body plan of a brand new species. Yet, (directly contrary to what Darwinists have assumed without any warrant), biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars, (i.e. proteins, carbohydrates, etc..), in biology that Darwinists may wish to invoke. As Dr. Jonathan Wells explained, “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.”
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
And as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig points out, “even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements”,,, “the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated”…
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o/ Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.
The ‘blueprint’ for the biological form of any given species simply does not reside in DNA as Darwinists had falsely presupposed it to within population genetics.. As Michael Denton remarks in the following article,’”to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint.”
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism – Michael J. Denton – 2013 Excerpt: Cell form ,,,Karsenti comments that despite the attraction of the (genetic) blueprint model there are no “simple linear chains of causal events that link genes to phenotypes” [77: p. 255]. And wherever there is no simple linear causal chain linking genes with phenotypes,,,—at any level in the organic hierarchy, from cells to body plans—the resulting form is bound to be to a degree epigenetic and emergent, and cannot be inferred from even the most exhaustive analysis of the genes.,,, To this author’s knowledge, to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint. As mentioned above, between genes and mature cell form there is a complex hierarchy of self-organization and emergent phenomena, rendering cell form profoundly epigenetic. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3/BIO-C.2013.3
bornagain77_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

BobRyan Where are the fossils that show a gradual lengthening of neck?
Eaten by those lions with long neck. We don't find those lions with long neck in the fossil record because the Tyrannosaurs preffered to eat only that kind of long neck lions so they were extinct exactly before the flood that would form fossil strata . :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Where are the fossils that show a gradual lengthening of neck?BobRyan_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

FH, you are correct that deductive proof is not in the gift of empirical science, though its stock in trade is warrant by inference to best current explanation, a type of modern sense inductive reasoning. The observed presence of 500 genes "that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes" constitutes a case of a deeply isolated island of function. This warrants a design inference. KF PS, In deductive reasoning the truth status of premises is often a matter of observation or induction. Even in Math, we have Godel incompleteness. Of course some things are self evident on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial, but they are never enough to be comprehensive.kairosfocus_{May 28, 2022
May
05
May
28
28
2022
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

500 unique genes that should not be unique with common ancestry. Science continues to prove design.
Nit-pick : science doesn't prove or disprove anything, that's math. Science is an endeavor using observation, experiment, hypothesis testing to build models and develop explanations for aspects of reality. So you have common descent with modification due to variation and selection with the result that different species possess different genomes. Now I understand that ID proponents claim evolutionary processes are impossible or limited. Therefore they must think something else is the explanation. What is that?Fred Hickson_{May 27, 2022
May
05
May
27
27
2022
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

500 unique genes that should not be unique with common ancestry. Science continues to prove design.BobRyan_{May 27, 2022
May
05
May
27
27
2022
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

from a mainstream paper (NewScientists) 2010 article:
Most people assume that giraffes’ long necks evolved to help them feed. If you have a long neck, runs the argument, you can eat leaves on tall trees that your rivals can’t reach. The evidence supporting the high-feeding theory is surprisingly weak. Giraffes in South Africa do spend a lot of time browsing for food high up in trees, but elsewhere in Africa they don’t seem to bother, even when food is scarce.
So now Darwinists claim, that Giraffe's long neck is because of sexual selection. Allegedly, females prefer males with longer neck. Allegedly. Because some biologist says so. And, recently, another article came with an idea of thermoregulation. This theory is a mess. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck/#:~:text=Because%20a%20giraffe's%20brain%20is,keep%20giraffes'%20necks%20so%20long. PS: from an engineering point of view it is clear, that giraffe was designed the way it looks. The whole body has to be in balance. That includes a proper length of legs as well. All four legs. You can't have short legs with such a long neck. Otherwise giraffes could not move let alone run. Would flip over and then die = NO EVOLUTION. NO GIRAFFES. Seversky and Co. may argue, that long legs evolved first and then the long neck. Yes, but you have to support such a claim with evidence. E.g. fossil record. Ahh, i know, you can't, because fossils are rare. Eventually, you can claim, that long legs and long neck 'co-evolved', at the same moment, by random mutations. Step by step: a bit longer neck, and at the same moment a bit longer front legs and then a bit longer hind legs and so on... like in a fairy tale. When you are a Darwinist, you can believe anything ...martin_r_{May 27, 2022
May
05
May
27
27
2022
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes.
500 unique genes ? Darwinian scientists believe in miracles.martin_r_{May 27, 2022
May
05
May
27
27
2022
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

When the team probed the genome further, they identified almost 500 genes that are either unique to giraffes or contain variants found only in giraffes.
Given that, plus the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is for deluded people who can deny reality.ET_{May 27, 2022
May
05
May
27
27
2022
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Unlocking giraffeness

Leave a Reply