Sunday, July 28, 2013
Let's starve a giraffe for science
Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science, of being afraid of science, of not being able to chew my bubblegum properly while walking down the street humming a Ricky Martin song, ad nauseum. It's always that way with the liberal crowd. Are they still upset they have to pay a buck more than a conservative for a smoothie?
And now they're going to say that I want to starve a giraffe. That means denying our favorite long-necked critter his daily sustenance. They're going to call PETA - the animal "rights" clowns who once condemned dolphins dying in tuna nets while not saying a word about the tuna - and they're going to whine and complain and yip-yap (little whiny complaining yorkies also yip-yap a lot) about how I want to starve our favorite long-necked critters, and they can't have that. But it's a science project, and it should be OK. Libs love science. They worship science. After all, the last of the great auks were killed off in the name of science, so maybe putting a long-necked critter under glass in a museum must be OK.
So here's the thing. You'll probably have to get your hands on a school or college textbook, in my case it's titled Essentials of Physical Anthropology, by Jurmain, Kilgore, and Trevathan. It's supposed to cover the history of early man, from modern times all the way back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when men were a tad too-hairy, only said one single word ("Ooongawa!") and had a penchant for bananas. We was such a swinging bunch back then. The scientists said so. It's true. Why, they did more than just dig up some old, dry bones; they invented the flux capacitor, which makes time travel possible after installation in a used 1984 DeLorean sport coupe, and they took that trip down memory lane in style to video-tape all of those hairy proto-men swingers way back in the Miocene, some 20 or so million years ago.
So, if you believe time travel is not possible within a DeLorean, then all the scientists have are fossils...and their own interpretations to go with them. Because they cannot test their theories that an ape-like critter evolved into man over the course of millions of years, they have to say it happened. Saying is one thing; proving is quite another. Hearsay is just not admissible as evidence.
So, page 33 of Essentials of Physical Anthropology. The authors just have to bring up the history of evolution, using Jean Baptist Lamarck, Charlie Darwin, and others, and part of that history happens to be how species originated, and they use the many-times repeated example of...you guessed it...our favorite long-necked critter, the giraffe. On page 33 we are shown two theories. The first is Lamarck's theory, which states that the leaves on the tree was out of reach, so the giraffe just kept stretching that neck over generations, until it was the right length to reach the tree leaves. Charlie Darwin theorized that there was a variety of giraffes, in that there was a mixture of animals with different-sized necks, with the ones having the longest necks being able to reach the leaves. This in turn would be passed down to future generations via natural selection. The long-necked ones survived, the short-necked ones did not. Charlie's theory was better than Jean's, so guess who won?
Remember, we are told - yes, told - that Charlie's theory is true; it is a fact; evolutionists said so; no one should be allowed to refute it under penalty of massive amounts of hate mail. But this can be experimented on right now, as per step three of the Scientific Method, which is something no evolutionist had ever bothered to do with a giraffe, let alone any other animal in a similar situation. So, let's go through the Scientific Method right now...
Step one: observation. Look at the neck, come up with questions as to how it got so dadd-blanged long!
Step two: hypothesis. Your guess...er, hypothesis...must be in keeping with both Lamarck's and Chuckie Darwin's theories. Either they did some stretching, or they altered their DNA.
Step three: experiment. And here's what you do...
Grab hold of a giraffe, place it in an enclosure with nothing but a tree in it. Make sure the lowest branches of the tree are a foot out of reach of the giraffe's mouth. Monitor on a daily basis the giraffe's height and weight; take blood samples and check for any changes to the DNA.
Now, keep in mind that Lamarck, Darwin, and every other evolutionist on the planet have all said that changes in species, such as the increased length of a giraffe's neck, take a lot of time...generations, to be exact. So, what do you think will happen with the giraffe in our experiment?
Will that neck grow a little more? Will there be a change in DNA, to be passed along to future generations?
There is just one little catch with this scenario. There has to be a visible change with 30-45 days. Period. This is the actual, observed-IAW-step-one-of-the-scientific-method status with the giraffe, and any other animal out there, including man. A giraffe is not going to wait generations to grow a neck to reach the food it needs to survive; it is going to need the food right now. Not a week from Tuesday; not next year; and certainly not in a few generations. Right now.
Because if it cannot reach the leaves in the tree, if it cannot find another food source, if those circumstances ensure it has nothing to eat within 30-45 days, that giraffe is going to starve to death.
So much for the evolutionary hypothesis...er, guess!
The silly little amateurs from Otisburg have responded, in the way befitting their own educational level. First and foremost is this one:
"Holy (foul language removed), that guy is one stupid (foul language removed) moron. "Evolution is false, and I can prove it by showing that an alternative, creation-based theory is false." As someone mentioned earlier; if there was sudddenly a disease that killed people under 6' tall, our species height would increase, because only tall people would be left to breed. And this is not because we were all able to stretch and get taller. You idiot."
Or this one:
"The really sad thing is that even Kj is really smart enough to figure the real "theory" out himself: that short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine so long as there was plenty of food. But when the environment changed and food was scarce, only the long-neckers could compete. Evolution is about existing modifications suddenly being important due to external change. He can look around him and see people from 4' to 7' tall and realize how it might have gone down. It's not rocket science to reason that out for oneself, but they all have this Sarah Palin ignorant mocking of stupidities, which they assert are scientific theory and absolutely refuse to let the brain consider the topic. Pretty weird way to operate a cerebrum."
One even went ballistic. He calls himself Jeeves, which is usually a name for a robotic butler, but I'll still call him Otis, like the other educationally-challenged on their site.
"Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science..." Yes, yes we are. And not because of smoothies or whatever other (foul language removed) you're ranting incoherently about, because YOU DON'T (FOUL LANGUAGE REMOVED) UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION."
Apparently, the silly little amateurs collectively-named Otis are under the impression that I, and everyone else on the planet, must accept their version of science, specifically in the creation of life. There are some problems within these quotations, as well as in the minds of those who originally wrote them, so here are my answers...
First, this blog was about the short-comings of evolution, specifically macroevolution. One version of Otis wrote down "...exposed bacteria to citrate rich but otherwise energy poor growth substrate for thousands of generations until they evolved the ability to utilise citrate", as if that was part and parcel to the giraffe's neck, but what he was talking about was microevolution - which is observed - rather than macroevolution, which has never been observed. The giraffe's neck involves macroevolution. Big difference.
Second, and you can see it above, another Otis wrote "short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine." Then where are these short-necked giraffes at? Where are their remains? And if their remains have been found, where is the empirical proof that these animals were the ancestors of modern giraffes? Are we to look at them in a line and assume a change took place because Otis said so? I know exactly what they will say:
"Uhh, you have to look at the remains...see the change in neck length...you must accept it...these aren't the droids we're looking for...move along!"
Third, they gotta do the "look-at-the-other-species-argument" to bolster their case. It's the "look-at-the-tall-humans" argument to bolster their case of the giraffe's neck. Let's see...I had a previous clown try to tell me that since scientists tried to do a domestic dog program by breeding foxes (a failure, by the way), I must accept that by looking at the foxes the same thing happened with cavemen doing the same thing with wolves. Different animal, but it must be true...Dr. Slagrock's notes about it were found in Fred Flintstone's cave some years ago...or don't they have any real evidence at all?
And one other Otis has to chime in, pretty-much in agreement with what I just said...
"He's incredibly (foul language removed) stupid AND incredibly (foul language removed) smug--a deadly combination. His smugness prevents him from ever accepting evolution, as that means he would have to accept that he was wrong about something. His stupidity will make him believe any (foul language removed) creation idea. It doesn't matter how many times you explain the most basic ideas of evolution to him, he simply will always refuse to accept and comprehend them. One of the most proud, ignorant (foul language removed) (foul language removed) I've ever seen."
And they call me close-minded? They call me so smug about my own beliefs that I will never accept evolution? They sound like I violated some major law or something. Perhaps they want me punished with death or life imprisonment or worse - like, spend a week in an Occupy Wall Street tent.
The sad part is the fact that they are the one who are smug; they are the ones who are ignorant as to what evolution actually is. Unfortunately, these people never bothered to educate themselves to the fullest extent; they made "assumption" into dogma; they made "conjecture" into fact. They said the giraffe's neck grew as a result of environmental change, and they say it's a fact, despite no evidence in the fossil record of giraffe ancestors with necks increasing in length over time; they say this event happened, that it's a fact. And if they had fossils, they would point to them and demand we must assume a change took place. Assume. Get the picture?
And as to proving a lack of education on Otis' part...well, you did see all of the foul language I had to remove!