- Image via Wikipedia
Another Christian show captured by my DirecTV’s recorder. This time it is Frank Turek, spouting nonsense from his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. He stood on a stage with all the high-tech audio/video found in most BFCs these days (BFC=”Big Fucking Church”). His audience looked on with memorized lack of education, soaking up strawman after strawman argument regarding evolution, atheism, and life in general.
It was an hour long program and, as tempted as I am to refute it point by point, I’m going to just highlight a few things.
He starts by inventing his own definition for “worldview” -real definitions in use by academia today apparently aren’t to his liking and leave to many gaps. This is his main straw man: he re-shapes the definition of worldview in order to set up what he sees as the only appropriate worldview, which is his.
A worldview, according to Turek, is an explanation of why things are the way they are and “the true worldview must have explanatory power and scope to explain all of the “pieces” of the puzzle we call reality.” And he includes “10 things” that must be explained by any worldview.
First, this simply isn’t a definition of “worldview” that real academics use. At least not fully. What Turek is doing is limiting the definition of worldview to the narrow, bigoted range that his own worldview encompasses, while simultaneously poisoning the well (a type of ad hominem fallacy) by denigrating other ways of viewing the world as not “the true worldview.”
His “10 things” that “must be explained” are:
- origin of the universe out of nothing
- the extreme fine-tuning of the universe
- origin of order and the 4 natural forces
- origin of reason and laws of logic
- the origin of the laws of mathematics
- the origin of objective morality
- origin and design of life and consciousness
- the origin and design of new life forms
- the origin of intelligence
- origin of personality
He admits that a worldview can include other things as well, but these things, he insists, must be explained. He doesn’t, however, state that a worldview must support its explanations with evidence, so, by his own narrow and bigoted definition, goddidit works.
But the concept of “worldview” is one that is well discussed in philosophy and comes from the German term, Weltanschauung, which “denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world as the medium and exercise of human existence. Weltanschauung serves as a framework for generating various dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture, science, and ethics[1].”
According to Belgian philosopher Leo Apostle, a worldview should include, at minimum, these 6 things:
- An explanation of the world
- A futurology, answering the question “where are we heading?”
- Values, answers to ethical questions: “What should we do?”
- A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action.: “How should we attain our goals?”
- An epistemology, or theory of knowledge. “What is true and false?”
- An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own “building blocks,” its origins and construction.
This seems a bit more like a comprehensive perspective on the world than simply explaining things by starting with a conclusion (goddidit) then asking questions with this answer pre-inserted.
But Turek’s goal isn’t to put forth his own cult of Christianity as “the true worldview” rather he seeks to create additional strawman arguments of evolution that he can knock down for his undereducated and gullible audience. Throughout the “10 things” list above, Turek takes about 2/3 of the program listing them and pointing out largely invented positions of evolution and science. Expectedly, he uses the terms “atheist” and “Darwinist” interchangeably throughout the program, again using the poisoning the well fallacy in his argumentation as if one can not believe in Christian superstitions as well as the fact of evolution.
Nearer the end of his presentation, Turek does what most creationist nutters with an audience do, which is quote mine scientists to distort their words. He does so with Richard Dawkins by quoting page 1 of The Blind Watchmaker:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose.”
He then rants on about how if things look designed they must be, using the “looks like a duck; quacks like a duck… ” joke. But he clearly doesn’t intend for his audience to actually pick up a Dawkins book to check the quote for themselves, which, in its original context is:
We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe. There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us. But this doesn’t alter the point that I want to make. Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call ‘simple’ things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks. These are the stuff of physics. Chimps  and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people andworms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.
The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood.
It has a far different context than the one Turek intended for his audience. The same is true for the Francis Crick quote he offered:
“The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.â€
What Turek didn’t share with his audience was the name of the book, which was Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature[2]. Nor did he share with them the words before and after the quote or that the text they reside in is a overwhelmingly in support of evolution. Here’s the proper quote with more context:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
I could go on and on about the poor science, poor academics and poor philosophy being produced by Turek to his audience. They were drinking it like the Kool-Aid it is. But like I’ve said previously, these guys aren’t preaching to smart audiences. They pick their audiences very carefully and prefer to fill the seats in front of them with head nodding, side-hugging, kool-aid drinking believers who won’t ask uncomfortable questions.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Darwin and the case for ‘militant atheism’ (cnn.com)
- Richard Dawkins working on a book for teenagers… (calacanis.com)
- The Grandma Gambit meets its match (scienceblogs.com)
- Christian Faith in the Modern World (bpdt.wordpress.com)
- False Humility (exchristian.net)
RSS Content Feed
RSS Comments Feed
Follow me on Twitter
Email: Yenald Looshi
Doesn’t there NEED to be a full and complete rebuttal to Turek’s book, though? I’ve listened to him debate Christopher Hitchens and appear on the A Christian And an Atheist podcast and in those limited formats he’s been able to get away with a lot. In addition, neither the podcast hosts nor Mr. Hitchens are particularly versed in science and allowed many misrepresentations by Dr. Turek to go unchallenged.
While Dr. Turek presents himself as gregarious and self-deprecating during these debates, when “in his natural element” one his own website or working with oppresive faith-based organizations, he appears much less so. For instance, he has been the author of some virulent screeds against gay marriage and homosexuals in general, among other topics. I do feel that Dr. Turek’s book, if left unchallenged, will sway many people who have never read any philosophy, logic, evolution or general science books and that this will fuel Dr. Turek’s true objectives (and bigotry).
I’m not sure you can convince people eager to believe in design much of anything. If you believe it takes more faith to believe in the scientific method than religion you are pretty far out there. How could it make more sense in accepting the evidence from every branch of science that man and every other animal evolved from simple forms than it does that a magical God created everything to look that way? How can you ever explain complex things by postulating something more complicated?
It seems obvious that all creationists don’t believe what they do because its logical. They decided what they wanted to believe a long time ago and are just finding ways to justify what they already believe. They’re existential fear won’t let them look at the world any other way. They are children.
There sure seems to be a lot of FEAR from the haters. Of course both sides of the fence say the same thing. “HOW ABOUT SOME OPEN MINDEDNESS”??
The arrogance of man is what really seems to be constantly evolving to establishing an endless quagmire of theories that only continue to expose his ultimate ignorance of not only the origin of the universe and all of its possible species, but also most assuredly the advanced alien technologies and sciences that have been in existence long before our pungent existence. Who is to say that this “magical god” that finds its home in so many religions isn’t a SUPREME BEING (echo, echo, echo) with the ability to formulate the perfect “Big Bang?” Our truths are based on our limited knowledge. Recent space discoveries is a pretty good indicator that our overzealous passions to be right will continue to hinder the real truths of these subjects for a season as has been mans futile history. Just because we have not evolved to discover these truths, doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Truth doesn’t have to be accepted to be true. Maybe there is a balance to be found in truth and faith. Edison’s faith in producing the truth in a formula E=MC2 worked out pretty well. Whose to say that 200 years ago if we had shown up with todays technologies and sciences we wouldn’t have looked like we had the power of intelligent design! LOL! Well, maybe with the exception of my lawn mower that never starts easily!
Peace to all.
Richard E. Ackerman
It is funny that you find his definition limiting. If you read his book his book, which I am in the process of, you would find that he says the same thing regarding the definition of science. The way NCSE and others limit the view of science and Evoultion is to leave God completely out of the picture. Let me deal with your “debunking” of his worldview crieteria. I looked on wikiapedia for the German word for which you espouse is the “Academic” correct use for worldview. Take the time to compare each point raised in the definition that your present. I will list them side by side (T=Turek, A=Blog Author). Then I compare them for similarities. Here we go:
1. (A) An explanation of the world / (T) 1.origin of the universe out of nothing, and the extreme fine-tuning of the universe
My question to you, does the question of origin and design not meet the explanation of the world? Just because you dont like his viewpoint does not a definition make.
2. (A) A futurology, answering the question “where are we heading?”, dont see a counter to this. However, he is addressing the origins in light of a Darwinian worldview. He does not have to address this. If he were to talk on escatology (study of the end times) or similar issues, that would be appropriate.
3.(A) Values, answers to ethical questions: “What should we do?” vs. (T) the origin of objective morality… Basically the question formed in a different manner. Do you agree?
4.A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action.: “How should we attain our goals?” Turek need not address this as he is dealing with origins only. He is not dealing with a “wide worldview” as the definition insists. To some extent, this does relate to morals. Morally, what is the best way to accomplish your goals (this is applied broadly, and there is room for change).
5. (A) An epistemology, or theory of knowledge. “What is true and false?” vs. (T) Origin of reason and laws of logic, the origin of objective morality. Again, tell me how far apart these really are. If we are dealing with right and wrong, are not discussing absolute truth and morals?
6. (A) An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own “building blocks,” its origins and construction vs. (T) Take your pick on this one, most all his points deal with this particular subject. Would you not agree?
My point being that the author of this blog and Dr. Turek are not that far apart.
I find it funny that you also criticise him for using Dawkins quote out of context. I read the entire passage, and find it funny that Dawkins himself is admitting that a galaxy is a simple thing? Complex “things” require complex intelligence. Dawkins is searching for a discovery that completely against the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics. Things go from order to disorder and lose energy in the process. It is not the Creation group practicing bad science. There is plenty evidence of intelligence in the most basic forms of life (one celled orgainsims). But because Dawkins has a materialist worldview, he must overlook the most obvious to come up with the ridiculous. There is not a single shred of evidence that shows that life forms from non-living things. Even the Miler? experiement back in the late 50′s had intelligence behind it. It has NEVER been observed, tested, repeated. Yet because Intelligence can’t be inserted into the conversation then you are left with as the late Stephen Gould’s book called a “hopeful monster” which has not been found. Who is practicing poor science here?
I would take issue with some of Turek’s orthodoxy in terms of secondary issues with Christianity, but I would suggest you read his and Dr. Giesler’s book. I will be reading the “Evolution vs. Creation” book by Dr. Eugenie Scott next. She is the Chairman / President of the National Center for Science Education and a strong advocate for Evolutionary teaching in the public schools.
I deeply respect your thoughts, and hope I clairfied the worldview issues.
Being open-minded is fine… but what Turek wants is for you mind to be so open your brain falls out. The he can plug the hole with his made up bullshit.
Mark takes some issue with my post above regarding Frank Turek, the Straw Man Warrior.
As gods should be. While my use of the plural is subtle, it’s an important distinction between a realistic definition of science and a futile one. Turek (and perhaps yourself) would never consider gods other than his own. He sees an intelligence behind the design of the universe and makes a giant, GIANT leap to his own concept of a god -completely discounting any other. I’ve yet to see an explanation on how he arrives at Yahweh (one assumes) over Zeus, Quetzacoatl, Ptah, or some as yet unrevealed (or not yet invented) god or gods. Indeed, why not gods. If there can be one, logic dictates there can also be many, even discounting the problem of infinite regression. After all, what conditions are necessary and sufficient to ensure only one god can exist?
But this is a philosophical digression and I detest such excursions in discourse, so forgive me.
Gods are necessarily “left out of the picture” for the simple reason that they have no place until such time as evidence warrants them. One might as well postulate that the universe was the reproductive success of golden frogs. If science were to allow the goddidit explanation, what reason would their be for continued discovery? Luckily for us, this explanation was unsatisfactory for those such as Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, and so on. If, at the end of our scientific journey, a god is found, then it shall be properly cataloged and defined, but until then it remains an hypothesis at best, a fantasy perpetuated by the lazy at most.
No. It does not. And for more than because I dislike Turek’s viewpoint (I admittedly do -but because it is unsound). Moreover, I do not agree, necessarily with the Apostel definition -though I so far haven’t found reason to disagree. It’s definitely a position I’m willing to revise.
The question of origin and “design” most certainly do not meet the explanation of the world. The search for answers to the questions about origins (on biological and cosmological scales) contribute to explaining the world, but such questions and their answers are but a single, small piece of the explanation. Turek leaps to “a universe out of nothing” in a tautology that he fails to address. For him, there was a supposed nothing before the universe that he has some special knowledge of. Lacking that knowledge, I only say, with certainty, that I don’t know. If it were a god, Turek will need to show me good reason for it to be a god (and not golden frogs). And he definitely needs to demonstrate that it is his god (and not some other… or others).
I completely disagree. You’re simplifying Turek in such a way to exclude his position on morality, which is that morality can only exist because of a god. Which is complete and utter bollocks. And I can logically demonstrate it with a simple thought experiment:
Imagine you believe there is a god. And that your god has given you a moral day off. Your god says, in words that thunder through the air in such as way that you have no doubt it is your god speaking, “today I proclaim it permissible and moral to rape, murder and steal. In fact, not do so is, for today only, immoral.”
And you know your god is not lying.
Do you rape, murder, and steal?
I ask you not to answer here because either answer will do you no justice. If you say “yes,” then you’re either lying or a sociopath. If you answer “no,” then you’ve exhibited a sense of morality that is independent of your god’s.
Possible responses include, of course, “my god would never… etc.”, but this would also be a lie if your god is Yahweh given the genocidal atrocities, misogyny, and immoral acts he’s attributed with in the book of Samuel. It would also be a cop-out.
Ah. Then he isn’t dealing with a “worldview.” He should have titled that slide “origins.” You and I are, it would seem, in agreement with regard to Turek creating a straw man.
So he gets one in six. That’s just about my odds of winning a dollar in the local scratch-offs. I’m not going to get rich with either Turek or the Lotto (either intellectually or monetarily).
I would strongly agree.
But not for the reasons you might hope. Turek is, most definitely, describing an etiology with each of his points above. But it’s an etiology that is biased, limiting, exclusionary, and bigoted. And, as such, has no place in science or reason.
It’s biased because the conclusions are in the premises (a universe is formed from “nothing”; “design”; etc.).
It’s limiting because he states these “10 things” … “must be explained.”
It’s exclusionary compared with simply stating there should be an etiology.
And it’s bigoted because it only allows for Turek’s worldview. Others, under his definition, wouldn’t be worldviews. Which is what he’s trying to do: create a straw man out of science that he can tear down.
I think Turek and I are about as far apart as two people can be and still be of the same species.
“Gods are necessarily “left out of the picture” for the simple reason that they have no place until such time as evidence warrants them.” Abiogenesis would a good place to start considering God. Some of what is being discussed here relates to Scientific research. Can it be tested? Can it be observed? Can it be repeated? Abiogenesis (life from nonliving material) is a fantasy. Punctuated Equlibrium would be another reason for God. Since the fossils dont exist and Darwinist cant explain how a specific oranganism evolved, they postulate that creatures must just evolve spontaneously. This too has never been tested, observed, or repeated. More to come later.
Neither abiogenesis nor punctuated equilibrium, both hypotheses (and both, incidentally, testable and potentially testable), require any discussion of a god.
Moreover, inserting a god (or multiple gods, as one should equally do) does nothing but create an argument from ignorance: you don’t know how something works, therefore a god did it. The ultimate cop-out of an apologist who wants his or her particular notion of god to be chosen over all others.
I will not be providing an education on abiogenesis nor evolution since it is far and beyond the scope of a blog. Either you have the willingness and the desire to seek higher education or you don’t (or, alternatively, you choose to ignore the tenants of higher education in favor or your own particular brand of superstition). So don’t expect me to take on your burden of proof. You’re the one saying a goddidit. Now show your work.
Abiogenesis needs proof, correct? Would that be part of Science? Do we need to obeserve, test, and repeat to prove science or do we attack the character of the person questioning an assertion that life came from non-llife? Punctuated Equilibrium needs proof correct, just as Darwinian Evolution? or do we just accept a “just so” explaination? I dont insult your education nor do I think you need more education. I would like to debate the issues, not our educational degrees or educational pursuits. Agree? If not, then all we have is name calling and hyperbole, which not helpful to anyone.
which is not helpful….
Question, to test abiogensis, does that not require some intelligence for a scientist? How to you test Punctuated Equilibrium? How do you repeat both? By definition, PE can not be tested.
I believe in micro-evolution!!! We see this daily and can observe this to be true within many species. Extrapolating this out to say that one species can morph / evolve into another species is bad science. This philosophical viewpoint is filled with presuppostions for which the fossil record has not supported. How many of the “missing links” that are given as evidence are supported by an archelogical find of the entire fossil? and how many are just a couple of bones found for which a scientist makes a hypothetical model of what the creature may have looked like? I dont have an exact percentage to give you, but you will find there is A LOT of this going around. Might I suggest you read his book (Turek)? I have learned a great deal on this subject matter reading opinions and research that I may not agree with. Your question how he arrives at Jesus for these answers? The book makes it clear in light of the evidence Turek has done.
Show your work, if you require me to do so, then show how it possible that life comes from non-life? Show how some species spontaneously morphs completely into another one? My answer looks alot better than yours at this point.
My apologies for the delay. I’ve spent a great deal of 2011 out of country and working in remote locations.
Like I said, I’m not going to start a class in abiogenisis. What you’re doing is creating a straw-man (a la Turek). Evolution is too difficult and has too much evidence for you to rationally dispute, so you dismiss it with a casual comment that you believe in “micro-evolution,” insert the same tired and refuted ignorance in rhetorical form about there not being enough “transitional fossils,” then deflect the whole matter over to “something from nothing” at a time that you hope (3.6 billion years ago) no one could possibly speak of what happened since it was so long ago.
People can, and do, speak of it. Amino acids and nucleotides can spontaneously form under a variety of conditions and proteins and DNA/RNA are routinely synthesize in the laboratory, demonstrating that, given the right conditions, it is possible (the alternative hypothesis has not once been shown -that a god can happen given the right conditions). Moreover, it’s been shown, empirically, that amino acids react to give proteins when just dissolved in water containing the correct salts, and then warmed (Fox 1984).
Below, I list more links to blog posts and peer-reviewed articles to which you can educate yourself. The blog articles are summations of peer-reviewed literature, by the way. Like I said, I’m not going to give a class in abiogenisis. For one, I’m hardly qualified. I have, however, read enough of the literature to see that 1) abiogenisis may be occurring now, either on earth or other celestial bodies, 2) it can potentially be recreated in the lab (and has, though the conditions may not have been that of 3+ billion years ago, 3) we can (and have) pieced together a recreation of abiogenic events using ancient data, modeling and experimentation. None of these points involve superstition. Nor do they need to. I’ve said all I need to on abiogenisis.
On to your other misconceptions and fallacies.
Microevolution and macroevolution are very much the same thing. They happen by the same processes. The difference is the former describes changes in allele frequencies within populations; the latter describes changes at the species level. One cannot accept (“believe in”) microevolution without also accepting macroevolution unless one is wholly ignorant of evolutionary mechanisms, processes, and genetics. All macroevolution requires is microevolution, and not the tiniest bit of evidence has every been produced by anti-science and ignorant creationists to show otherwise. Where the ignorance arises is in the creationists ability to understand what gradual change truly entails. One species does not “morph” into another at a rate that can be identified in a pair of individual organisms. The gradation is such that it would take thousands of years to observe. The taxonomic representation of this would be a continuum of change that would not reveal a distinct point of emergence for the new species, yet one would be noticed, distinctly at opposite ends of the tree. The larger the distance, the more the change will be noticed. The difference, for instance, in change between Homo erectus (2-3 ma.) and Homo sapiens is minimal compared to the distance between Notharctus (60 ma.) and H. sapiens. And the morphology between the two species is appropriately different. I can talk to you all day long about hominid evolution.
This is, contrary to your poorly framed assertion, very good science. Backed by reams of confirmatory data. One need only read and learn.
Your question about how many “entire fossil[s]” are necessary to confirm “missing links” (no scientist I know makes use of this term -it was likely first used by the ignorant or the superstitious rhetorically rather than rationally) is uninformed and wholly ignorant, demonstrated first by pointing out that your assumption these “missing links” are the general responsibility of archaeologists. I’m afraid not. Archaeologists concern themselves with human material remains (pots, figurines, tools, buildings…). Fossils are the domain of paleontologists -the closest of these to an archaeologist is a paleoanthropologist. Second, you assume that a “entire fossil” is necessary to know anything about a species. This is the type of ignorance easily overcome by an education on the subject.
If your education is coming from Turek, you’re crippling your mind and limiting its ability to think critically. Particularly if you’re willing to take it all at face value.
I used a lot of words like “ignorant” and it’s derivatives. I mentioned a lack of education and criticized your ability to think critically. But these are not ad hominem attacks. Absolutely not. Ignorance is only bad if one is unwilling to be enlightened -to seek knowledge. I realize it my criticisms come off harsh, but if you’re willing to criticize that for which you clearly lack an education on, the point of ignorance is a serious one that cannot be overlooked.
I’m completely willing to take Turek to task for any passage of his book you feel is compelling. Indeed, I challenge you to cite the chapter, and page -perhaps even a brief quote- of the most compelling argument he makes. I’m not willing to spend money to line Turek’s pocket, but my library has the book.
References
Origin of Life – RNA Self Replicators
The Origin of Life on Earth: New Research
Deck, C., Jauker, M., & Richert, C. (2011). Efficient enzyme-free copying of all four nucleobases templated by immobilized RNA. Nature Chemistry, 3(8), 603-608.
Dunker, A. K., & Kriwacki, R. W. (2011). The Orderly Chaos of Proteins. Scientific American, 304(4), 68-73.
Fox, Sidney W. (1984). “Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis”, in Science and Creationism, ed. Ashley Montague, Oxford University Press.
Johnston, David T. (2011). Multiple sulfur isotopes and the evolution of Earth’s surface sulfur cycle. Earth-Science Reviews, 106(1-2), 161-183.
Klein, Richard (2010). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Laflamme, M., Schiffbauer, J. D., & Dornbos, S. Q. (2011). Quantifying the Evolution of Early Life. (M. Laflamme, J. D. Schiffbauer, & S. Q. Dornbos, Eds.)Media, 36, 482. Springer Netherlands.
There are strawmen arguments on both sides. True Darwinian Evolutionists have a problem with the beginning of life. Would you agree? I will check out your links.
The straw man argument(s) on the side of reality aren’t clear. Moreover, evolution is necessarily a Darwinian concept, and, although it has been refined and greatly enhanced since Darwin’s time, the core concept of gradual changes over great time hold true. Therefore, all evolutionists are Darwinian. Therefore, the inclusion of “Darwinian” with evolutionists is redundant. The redundancy is explained by a need for hyperbole and rhetoric where logic and reason fail.
To your point, however, evolutionists may have problems with the “beginning of life” though I doubt they are the same problems you envision. They recognize that less is known about than the mechanisms of evolution. But they also recognize that abiogenesis is related to evolution in that the gradual adaptations and mutations that are part of the evolutionary process necessarily began prior to prokaryotic life with the molecules that gradually formed amino acids, which gradually formed protein chains, which gradually….
The reason for using Darwinian Evolutionist is this. There are those that do believe that “God” started the process and then Evolution took over. Theistic Evolution…. Look, I would love for some Darwinan Evolutionist tell me about the common ancestor to the giraffe? tell me about the assumptions that are inherent within each and every dating model, including radio-metric dating, tell me why with such a clear definition of science (observable, tested, repeated) do those who believe it, have very questionable answers and little fossil evidence to support this gradual change with the very well documented low beneficial mutation rate within each species… I could go on.. We will agree to disagree. I believe the lack of evidence speaks louder than the supposed evidence.
You want the last common ancestor of the giraffe and what? Bovidae? Or are you wanting that of Giraffidae and Hominidae?
You want assumptions “inherent with each and every dating model?” seriously? Each and every? I don’t have that kind of time. How about you pick the one you think has the least support and the most assumptions.
I’m happy to answer once you’ve elucidated your questions.
The giraffe, can Evolution explain the development of the Giraffe’s neck? This is my pick. Remember the field of Science requires testable reproduce and observable material to make its case. Just for record, Macro Evolution has NEVER been observed, tested or reproduced. All animals in the fossil record are fully formed, so who is making the assumptions here?
How did it evolve and where is the intermediate species? Hint: there are none….
The argument for a lack of transitional fossils for a modern species is certainly a fallacious one for several reasons (the absence of a fossil hardly means a species didn’t exist, but this is a different discussion).
Still, there is very good evidence for the evolution of the giraffe. Modern giraffes share a common ancestor with the modern deer, branching out just after the Eumeryx. Climacoceras, of the Miocene, were probably among the first giraffids, followed by Canthumeryx, Paleomeryx, and Palaeotragus. The latter of these was a short-necked giraffid that had short horns covered with a dermal layer. By the late Miocene, Samotherium makes an appearance in the giraffe evolutionary line, followed by Okapia (of which there is still a modern species), and the Giraffa in the Pliocene, which includes the modern long-necked giraffe.
Giraffids belong to the order Artiodactyls, and there is a very rich body of data which are documented through both dentition and a large quantity of skeletal remains.
In short, there are transitional fossils between Eumeryx and the modern giraffe.
One interesting bit of evidence for the fact of evolution is actually accentuated in the giraffe, and that’s the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which, in most if not all mammals, travels from the brain to the larynx only after making a circuitous loop around the aorta of the heart. The reason it does this, of course, is evolution. In our fish-like ancestors this nerve made the same trip in just a few millimeters and in a more direct route. In giraffes, the nerve’s full length can be as long as 15 feet to make a trip that should only be a few inches! This is because of evolution. the pathway for the nerve was already established by natural selection long before new species began to develop their own morphological traits, like necks.
And you’re dead wrong. There are intermediate species between the Eumeryx and the modern giraffe. And their evolution occurred gradually. Evolution can be observed in the fossil and genetic records and it is reproduced time and again. In addition, the fact of evolution allows us to make predictions, such as Tiktaalik, which was predicted to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians in the Devonian period at around 375 ma.