The Neck of the Giraffe


The Discovery Institute has put up a long screed by Fred Reed that was originally published in something called Men’s Daily News. The article is entitled, “The Metaphysics of Evolution.” Fred Reed claims those nasty evolutionists don’t really know anything, they rely on plausibility rather than evidence, that evolution is an religion of anti-creationism, and that Fred Reed has stumped all them evolutionists on the internet.

A representative quote is below. Hey Fred, if you want some answers to your questions, come on over to the Panda’s Thumb and ask them. Or, you could consider just going to a library, rather than wildly assuming that your personal ignorance bears some relationship to reality.

Fred Reed writes,

A few things that worry those who are not doctrinaire evolutionists. (Incidentally, it is worth noting that by no means all involved in the life sciences are doctrinaire. A friend of mine, a (Jewish, atheist) biochemist, says “It doesn’t make sense.” He may be wrong, but a Creationist he isn’t.)

To work, a theory presumably must (a) be internally consistent and (b) map onto reality. You have to have both. Classical mechanics for example is (so far as I know) internally consistent, but is not at all points congruent with reality. Evolution has a great deal of elaborate, Protean, and often fuzzy theory. How closely does it correspond to what we actually see? Do the sweeping principles fit the grubby details?

For example, how did a giraffe get a long neck? One reads as a matter of vague philosophical principle that a proto-giraffe by chance happened to be taller than its herdmates, could eat more altitudinous leaves than its confreres, was therefore better fed, consequently rutted with abandon, and produced more child giraffes of height. This felicitous adaptation therefore spread and we ended up…well, up–with taller giraffes. It sounds reasonable. In evolution that is enough.

But what are the practical details? Do we have an unambiguous record of giraffes with longer and longer necks? (Maybe we do. I’m just asking.) Presumably modern giraffes have more vertebrae then did proto-giraffes. (The alternative is the same number of vertebrae, but longer ones. I have known giraffes. They were flexible rather than hinged.) This, note, requires a structural change as distinct from an increase in size.Fred Reed, Discovery Institute website

Even on the internet, you can sometimes find things out by using revolutionary tools like search engines. I typed “giraffe skeleton” into Google Images and found this pretty quickly:

Hmm, seven vertebrae. This is the same number as humans, to pick a random mammal. A brief web search reveals that this striking fact is approximately the most common giraffe factoid on the internet. [1]

Antievolutionists (even apparently noncreationist ones like Fred Reed) often claim that they “don’t get no respect” from the dogmatic evolutionist establishment. This is a major part of Fred Reed’s screed. But, really – pontificating on evolution, spouting off about giraffes without knowing the very first thing about giraffe necks? Give us a break, here!

[1] Note: I have detected one reference to a scientific publication that indicates that there might be one extra vertebra in giraffe necks. This appears to depend on how one defines “neck.” But regardless, the main mechanism of making long giraffe necks was stretching what they’ve got.

See: Solounias, N. 1999. “The remarkable anatomy of the giraffe’s neck.” Journal of Zoology (London) 247:257-268

INTRODUCTION It is well known that mammals typically possess seven cervical vertebrae. This number is stable from mouse to whale in contrast to the necks of reptiles and birds. There are few exceptions to the number of seven cervical vertebrae in mammals. The sloth Choloepus has a variable number of either six or seven cervical vertebrae. The manatee Trichechus has six and the sloth Bradypus has nine cervicals (Filler, 1986; Nowak, 1991). In contrast to the stability of the cervical vertebrae in mammals, the number of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae is variable (Filler, 1986; Burke et al., 1995). Most zoologists accept that the best example of stability in the number of cervical vertebrae in mammals is the giraffe which has been observed to have seven. I propose to show that the giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis has in a subtle way escaped our scrutiny and actually has eight cervical vertebrae. Solounias, N. 1999. “The remarkable anatomy of the giraffe’s neck.”

PS: Here are some random points about giraffes that people should ponder, should anyone wish to have a non-silly conversation about giraffe evolution.

  • Check out Giraffidae throughout time
  • How much of giraffe height is due to their long neck, compared to, say, their long legs, or just being very big? Take a look at the skull photo at the top of this post. Obviously just sheer bigness is about half the story. Giraffes would be massive , fairly tall critters even without their necks.
  • Be sure to take a look at an okapi and a gerunuk. Here is a gerenuk:
  • On the African savanna, the various herbivores have divided up the savanna in a very finely-grained fashion. There are antelope of almost every shape and size. One big division is between browsers and grazers, and there are all kinds of different ways of browsing and grazing. To pick a random example within grazers, zebras and wildebeest, even though they run around together, eat different portions of the same grass.
  • Male giraffes feed the highest up, female giraffes a few feet lower, and juvenile giraffes below that. Baby giraffes are six feet tall when born. They are even taller when they stop nursing a few months later. So even baby giraffes are already above most of the competition. Maybe, just maybe, this has something to do with the “Why does the giraffe have a long neck?” question. (Frank Sonleitner pointed this consideration out to me)


Yep, Mr. Reed has written a number of pieces that are convenient regurgitations of creationists’ claptrap. Good job on the “neck of the giraffe.” As you pointed out, Reed’s lack of knowledge is indicitive only of ignorance, although one less kind might also infer lazyness.

What I thought was a classic was his, “But I’m not really a creationist?” whine.

I think this calls for the application of the “duck test.” It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck …

The intelligent design paradigm really breaks down with the giraffe.

Not only are there seven bones in the giraffe neck, like almost all other mammals (does anyone know of any exception?); it contrasts quite unfavorably with the (usually) 14 bones in the neck of birds. The hummingbird, which would benefit from having 7 fewer bones, has 14; the giraffe would benefit from 14 smaller bones, has 7 huge ones. The mass of the bones is a major problem – it makes it difficult for a giraffe to get a drink of water, for example. Giraffes must splay their forelegs awkwardly to the side to get low enough to drink at the water hole, making themselves targets for predators. Getting back up is difficult, and this is frequently how older giraffes die. They have similar problems in mating. The story of Victor, the famous British giraffe, should be a chief example.

Then there’s the vagus nerve, and it’s evolutionarily-required loop through the aorta – making a nerve more than 15 feet long, down the neck and back up, to go from the brain to the larynx.

Creationists ought to study the anatomy of animals they point to, before they point to them.

What is important to me is that YOUR information about the giraffe, related species, and the relation to the environment is interesting to anyone who has any interest. It’s also reasonable and backed up by extensive research, etc.

This lazy blogger is interested in nothing at all, except being admired for being “right” about something or other. What absurd, and unjustifiable, vanity these people have!

also, i find it interesting when creationists spout on about how the giraffe would have to evolve all of these amazing pressure handling systems and what-not so that its head wouldnt explode when getting a drink. but they are completely oblivious to the fact that okapis already have these systems.

… a (Jewish, atheist) biochemist…

Jewish and atheist? How does that work?

Cary Wrote:

Jewish and atheist? How does that work?

He is probably refering to the biochemist as a cultural Jew, as opposed to a religious conviction.

Mr. Reed’s blog was also filled with some unsavory racist rhetoric that didn’t do anything for his credibility either.

Jewish and atheist? How does that work? Culturally Jewish - a sense of heritage, tradition, ethnic solidarity, perhaps adherence to a kind of secular Judaism as a source of ethical values, etc., but without belief in the Jewish (or any other) God. Lots of interesting history here.

I fixed a few typos – for some reason I wrote “Fred Heeren” once instead of “Fred Reed”. Fred Heeren is a pretty loony guy with a soft spot for ID, but I don’t think he has quite the issues that Fred Reed has.

>>Then there’s the vagus nerve, and it’s >>evolutionarily-required loop through the aorta

Ed, I think you meant the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

(Incidentally, it is worth noting that by no means all involved in the life sciences are doctrinaire. A friend of mine, a (Jewish, atheist) biochemist, says “It doesn’t make sense.” He may be wrong, but a Creationist he isn’t.)

Has anyone else noticed that as far as creationists are concerned, thinking evolution is correct makes you “doctrinaire” by definition regardless of what led you to that conclusion?

Doctrinaire? I don’t think that actually scores any points…

25. 20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.

26. 20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy” … “

I especially like #34: “40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant).”

wow - a lot of PT trolls (and creationists in general, actually) are right off the crackpot scale. I wish we could apply it as some sort of rating system …

Heh. I like “5 points for each word in all capital letters”. It amazes me when people don’t understand how poorly those capitalized words reflect on their writing skills.

moioci said:

>>Then there’s the vagus nerve, and it’s >>evolutionarily-required loop through the aorta

Ed, I think you meant the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I drop clues that I’m not a professional at this with some regularity.

What did I mean? Let’s go to the kids’ bookshelf … here it is:

In fishes, which are comparatively ancient in evolutionary terms, branches of a nerve from the brain (the vagus nerve) loop around each of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th blood vessels which run between the gill slits.

Only two of these branches remain in mammals, as the anterior and recurrent laryngeal nerves, connecting the brain to the larynx. However, the recurrent laryngeal nerve still loops around the remnant of the 6th arterial arch, now known as the ductus arteriosus; so from the brain to the larynx the nerve runs down the neck, round the ductus and back up the neck. This nerve is far longer than it needs be to connect the brain and the larynx. In the giraffe the nerve is about 4.5m (15ft.) long. (R. J. Berry and A. Hallam, Encyclopedia of Animal Evolution, Facts on File, 1989, p. 83)

Thanks, moioci.

Or, you could consider just going to a library, rather than wildly assuming that your personal ignorance bears some relationship to reality.

Yep, that hits the nail on the head. I think that’s one of the very things that enables creationists/IDists to say the things that they do. However, I take a Knudsonian view: there’s a two-hit mechanism at work here. You have to have at least two of the rationality pathways knocked out before you really become evangelical about your creationism.

So Mr. Reed made no mention of alternate hypotheses about the length of the giraffe’s neck, like sexual selection and necking behaviour?

Fred Reed Wrote:

But if evolutionists want people to accept evolution, they need to provide answers—clear, concrete, non-metaphysical answers without gaping logical lacunae. They do not. When passionate believers do not provide answers that would substantiate their assertions, a reasonable presumption is that they do not have them.

Yowza! Naturally Fred Reed lives up to the standards he sets for others. (?)

The Darwinist Nazi Stormtrooper’s write all the books in the library and widely disperse the mis-information throughout the internet. Thus, it gives the non-evolutionary individuals an uphill climb to get there own point of view out. Einstein himself in his later years will bear me out on this.

Call me a hidebound reactionary, but I feel a Galileo type suppression of the ideas of Fred Reed. I feel that time will vindicate his ideas in the scientific community. He is diffinitely the self appointed defender of the orthodoxy that he perports.

After all, there are lots of theory’s besides Creationism and Evolution. None come to mind, and I refuse to distract my train of thought by wading through the mis-information widely available on the internet. It may invalidate MY PERSONAL BELIEFS, and then I would have to divulge my personal revolutionary theory that will put an end to these discussions once and for all.

With my many years at an acredited institute of higher learning, and my continued work in a major research university, makes me qualified to comment on the Fred Reed situation. However, I’ll wait until the extra-terrestrial civilizations make themselves known to the general public before I give the details. When all of it comes out, I’ll certainly win a Nobel Prize, and there will be a paradigm shift in this entire area of study.

To adhere to the standard set by him, I won’t even read his piece. In my advocationist way, I’ll not support Evolution because it is only a theory. When the final prooferization of it becomes as law as Einstein’s Relativity only then will I bow to the conspiratorial forces that push such an unsupported and inconsistant theory such as the one that Fred Reed is against.

390 pts.

Is Fred Reed a grownup? I thought everybody in the 3rd or 5th grade had learned that mammals–mice, humans, giraffes, whales and just about all others–had the same number of neck vertebrae (seven). Maybe Fred went to one of those funny schools that teach non-science, like Dover, PA!

Monty Zoom, that’s hilarious! (you could get even more points if it was all in caps, but that is hard on the eyes)

I must have missed a prior post. These comments all assume evolution caused the neck bones to grow longer.

Could someone please link me to a site showing fossils of the progression from short-necked giraffes to medium-necked giraffes, and finally, long-necked giraffes?

Or, if there is no physical evidence to support that explanation, is there some other way to demonstrate its validity?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Holy Smokes! You boys better hope that article doesn’t get wide exposure. It’s devastating. Perhaps the best I’ve seen and I’ve seen a lot of them. It appears on which is, IMO, the best of the best for libertarian politics.

Nick Matze

Instead of cherry-picking the easy bit about giraffe neck vertebra, how about you tackle the butterfly questions posed by Fred Reed?

Thanks in advance.

DaveScot Wrote:

Holy Smokes! You boys better hope that article doesn’t get wide exposure. It’s devastating. Perhaps the best I’ve seen and I’ve seen a lot of them. It appears on which is, IMO, the best of the best for libertarian politics.

Devastatingly bad you mean.….[sarcasm switch on] I especially liked the points he was making about Africans being less intelligent and Jews being more intelligent than the typical European stock. The comments about Chinese women were especially enlightening [sarcasm switch off].

Mr. Reed is nothing more than an uninformed racist who is asking the bad questions based on his faulty perception of reality.

Ok, I went back on my word and actually read it…

First big problem: He takes Evolutionary Hypotheses and treats them as if they were facts. Then, quite readily, shows that they shouldn’t be taken as facts. One example:

Humans are said to have a poor sense of smell because they evolved to stand upright in the savanna where you can see forever and don’t need to smell things.

This is only supposition. Origin of species evolution can never be exact because our time machine is in the shop.

Second problem: How did a butterfly evolve? How would anyone know that? Unless we could observe the process for the millions of years that it took, there is no way to know. Plausible explanations are all that can be given.

Third problem: If not evolution, then what? Evolution is no good. It doesn’t explain this. It doesn’t explain that. That is the easy stuff. Give a detailed theory that fits all the evidence, that is the hard part. If you take ID to its only logical conclusion, you get evolution. If you fill in the vast multitude of holes that ID has, you end up with a theory that is evolution.

Nick Matze Wrote:

Instead of cherry-picking the easy bit about giraffe neck vertebra, how about you tackle the butterfly questions posed by Fred Reed?

Thanks in advance.

The point is I think not that this stuff is easy but that it’s easy to find out with hardly any effort if you actually want to, or even if you want to check yourself before possibly committing an error.

Google “metamorphosis butterfly caterpillar” and you hit a half dozen creationist sites before finding a few that point out that Fred’s statement

How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don’t turn into something practical at the end, you don’t get another chance.

(my emphasis) is demonstrably false.

There are in fact many insects that partially metamorphose. In other words, the state of affairs isn’t “all or nothing,” and that’s certainly not what evolution had to work with.

A more accurate statement of the state of the science would be:

We don’t understand the origins of metamorphosis in butterflies, but we know that there are degrees of metamorphosis present among insects, and currently scientists are developing reasonable theories to account for the origins of full metamorphosis.

The fact is I know nothing about insect metamorphosis. Thanks to your challenge, Nick, and 90 seconds with Google, I now know a bit more than I did, and, surprisingly, a bit more than Fred Reed.

I read this the other day in the March 5th issue of Science (it would be a good place to start regarding insect metamorphosis)

One of the most dramatic signaling events in biology is the developmental transition from larval to adult form in organisms that undergo metamorphosis. In insects such as Drosophila, the destruction of larval tissues and their replacement with adult forms is triggered by the steroid hormone 20-hydroxyecdysone. What other factors help coordinate transcriptional regulation with the wholesale tissue restructuring? Chen et al. found that signaling through LIM-kinase (a protein kinase regulated by the small guanosine triphosphatase Rho) is involved in these transitions. Rho modulates cell shape by regulating actin polymerization, and these changes affect transcription mediated by the serum response factor (SRF) transcription factor. Rho works through LIM-kinase to modulate expression of ecdysone-regulated genes, including Stubble, a gene encoding a protease involved in remodeling of the extracellular matrix. Cultured Drosophila SL2 cells required Rho signaling through SRF to allow proper ecdysone-dependent gene expression. Rho thus appears to be well placed to coordinate tissue remodeling and gene expression through its effects on the cytoskeleton, the extracellular matrix, and ecdysone-dependent gene expression. – LBR

Curr. Biol. 14, 309 (2004).

The simple answer is that we observe that many but not all insects undergo metamorphosis, some only undergo a limited metamorphosis. There exists an appartent progression from no metamorphosis, to partial metamorphosis, to full metamorphosis. This is an evolutionary progression. Similarly, we know that wings, and legs and antenna, and mouth-parts are all modifications of body segments associating the evolution of insects with the segmented worms, the Annelida. (We all remember the famous gaffe by Jon Wells over “shrimp.”)

Davescot and Fred Reed pick an extreem (either through ignorance or a desire to deceive )and treat it as if it were isolated.

Tharmas Wrote:

Nick Matze wrote: Instead of …

Actually, that was DaveScot writing to Nick

I’m not sure the ID folks feel the need to explain anything. I read a few creationist sites quoting Stephen J. Gould on Giraffe necks. They turn around and discount long necks from sexual selection because it does not explain the trait in females. They feel this is proof for ID. They skip the part on why the Designer gave female giraffes long necks that don’t help them in any way.

These comments all assume evolution caused the neck bones to grow longer

not really. accumulated changes over time resulted in giraffes with longer necks than previous giraffes. nothing caused them to get longer necks.

Could someone please link me to a site showing fossils of the progression from short-necked giraffes to medium-necked giraffes, and finally, long-necked giraffes?

see point #1 in the PS.

Jonas - Spinning a cocoon is a long and arduous process, and it is hard to see what advantage it would confer in the absence of silk. It takes a silkworm three days to spin a cocoon, during which it extrudes over a mile of silk through a spinneret on its lip while tirelessly moving its head in a figure 8 pattern without pausing to eat or eliminate. Put this together with a number of other behaviors in the proper order, and one gets what seems to be a highly improbable scenario. Pair this improbable sequence of behaviors with the convenient appearance of the associated body structures, and the improbability skyrockets.

It is true that evolutionary scenarios can be patched together for some examples of irreducible functional complexity. In cases like the one at hand, it becomes rather more difficult. When the right sort of gradualistic evolutionary scenario becomes so unlikely that the cumulative improbabilities of all of its junctures approaches the improbability of one concerted transformation - when the ordered accumulation of many small adaptations approaches their simultaneous occurrence in improbability - there is no longer any point in trying to avoid it; it becomes unavoidable, or if you will, evolutionarily “irreducible”. After all, it is not as though one can throw just any jumble of organs and processes together with any sequence of independent behaviors and expect a major adaptation to result. This one remains a mystery.

Dave, the sciences of animal behavior and biopsychology have arrived at an understanding of certain rudimentary aspects of the biological causation of human and animal behavior. For example, it can be observed that an intravenous flow of cocaine causes a rat to press a lever in order to sustain the flow, that providing a certain kind of sensory input can trigger a cascade of neural impulses tending to result in a certain kind of behavioral response, and that changing the relative concentrations of certain neurotransmitters in the brain changes the probability of various behaviors. Unfortunately, this sort of understanding is not yet of much use to us in explaining the pupation behavior of a butterfly. And even if it were (as one day it may be; for example, we may learn that the body of a silkworm is exquisitely wired into a biological equivalent of the above-mentioned cocaine dispenser), we would still need to address improbable confluences of minor adaptations which improbably result in major adaptations. As you’re well aware, in as brutal and demanding an environment as the one we inhabit, major adaptations of extremely high specificity just aren’t that probable.

Ken Shackleton, I read Reed’s article too, and I saw no evidence of racism. In fact, what I saw was a jab at political correctness by way of a sarcastic poke at what the author seems to consider racist literature. (This just goes to show you, the same body of evidence can support more than one explanatory hypothesis…even when they’re in diametric opposition.)

“Ken Shackleton, I read Reed’s article too, and I saw no evidence of racism. In fact, what I saw was a jab at political correctness by way of a sarcastic poke at what the author seems to consider racist literature. (This just goes to show you, the same body of evidence can support more than one explanatory hypothesis … even when they’re in diametric opposition.)”

Yeah. If you’re a racist. (beware, this is a sarcastic poke)

You’re rather a nasty little thing, aren’t you, luminous beauty? And so anxious to be paid! Why don’t you go find an occupation in which you can get paid for merely opening your mouth? (Clearly, nothing less will satisfy you in the long run.)

No need to get testy, Neurode. I told you it was sarcasm. Isn’t what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

As I said before, it’s a fascinating question. The pro-ID case to be made from it boils down to:

…it is hard to see what advantage it would confer…

And, of course, it’s hard to know the mysterious ways in which The Designer moves.

However, in the first case (looking for a plausible evolutionary scenario) I have some hope that I’ll either find something in the literature, or see some relevant research in my lifetime. In the latter case, however…

Reed might want to take a look at Truman and Riddiford (1999) “Origins of Insect Metamorphosis” Nature: 401:447-452. The paper proposes a fairly detailed model, based on endocrine and morphological studies, for the evolution of insects with complete metaphorphosis from more primitive insects that simply have nymph and adult stages.

Has anyone noted that many insects produce a chrysalis/pupa without a silk coccoon? Reed’s assertion that functional silk glands were required before the evolution of complete metamorphosis is retarded, as is his assertion that butterflies evolved from a caterpillar-like insect. To put it in language that IDists might understand, complete metamorphosis in a silken cocoon is not an irreducibly complex system, as demonstrated by all the insects that don’t have the cocoon and yet somehow manage to pupate successfully.

Oh yeah, and his claim that caterpillars don’t have legs suggests that Reed has never actually looked at one. They’ve got more legs than a butterfly In addition to the thoracic legs that both caterpillars and butterflies possess, caterpillars have abdominal legs that are absent from adult butterflies.

Hey, the whole argument is based on the notion that the international air transport system doesn’t exist.

It’s far too complex. You need billion dollar airports between which fly multimillion dollar planes with hundreds of passengers and thousands of gallons of jetfuel, plus all the required ancilliary support, like reservation systems, fuel refinerys, fuel xport, engineers, pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, schools for all the above…

How can such a system have developed without some centralized guiding hand? Clearly, back in 1914, there was an organization which decided what air transport would look like by 1970.

It’s obvious. Since there was no such organization, there is no such thing as an air transport system.


mark wrote:

“Is Fred Reed a grownup? I thought everybody in the 3rd or 5th grade had learned that mammals?mice, humans, giraffes, whales and just about all others?had the same number of neck vertebrae (seven). Maybe Fred went to one of those funny schools that teach non-science, like Dover, PA”

I don’t remember learning that, but I wish I had. I went to Catholic schools that taught evolution, then spent the last four years of my high school in the public system. (This is all in Sydney, btw - I can’t comment on US education). Evolution was always taken for granted, and like most people who were taught evolution, I wasn’t taught enough to understand the evidence for it, so I had little ability to argue against creationism when I finally encountered it. And I was the school nerd that usually came top in science subjects, so it’s not like I was asleep.

(Sigh). Very sloppy education.

It has already been pointed out that there are lots of metamorphing insects without cocoons, some of them using adhesive to anchor their chrysalis. Furthermore spinning is not only adaptive in the context of cocooning, but is being used as climbing aid by a lot of butterfly species. Add to this, that many cocoons make far less elaborate use of silk than silk spinners do (e.g. find some small moth cocoons in the crevices of an old food or textile storage room). So, if I am not completely mistaken, silk spinning exhibits not even the vestiges of irreducible complexity. Sure, the sudden appearance of a fullfledged spinning behaviour dissimilar to anything else observed morphological or ethological would be quite baffling and very unlikely to have appeared in one fell swoop. But each of the necessary intermediate steps between an unsuspended pupa and a silk spinner cocoon is not only possible to ‘patch together’, it is also beneficial to the animal concerned, in most cases evident in at least one metamorphing insect species and very much within the bounds of probabilistic models of evolution. That somebody wants to introduce a very unlikely model of the evolution of silk cocoons (either first the behaviour and then the silk or everything at once) to prop up a claim for IR or a vanishing probability for evolutionary explanations is completely his/her problem. It does not constitute a serious challenge to evolutionary theory. For this the best and not the worst explanation had to be shown lacking. But as usual, one wont find anti-evolutionist doing so.

Is there perhaps room for both? A really cunning wheeze for the ID’er is to have designed an entity and programmed it with the genetic ability to evolve: you wouldn’t have to spend all those aeons making all the myriad variants and popping back out of the unsightly tear in the space/time continuum to keed on inserting them at annoyingly inconsistent intervals in the fossil record. I believe that BT telecom engineers did this with roving diagnostics programmes that move around telephone networks copying and deleting themselves as they go and rewriting bits of their own code as they encounter faults and ‘learn’ from them. Presumably, the hide-bound Darwinian observer would detect the indisputable trail of evolutionary happenstance and point to the absence of an obvious creator in blissful ignorance of the fact that he’d finished early and sloped off to the pub.

Which is always a good idea.

cheers all.

Where did the myth arise that IDists are necessarily bible banging creationists? For all I know what seems to be Intelligent Design might be an autogenerated feature of the evolving organism, employing devices as yet undiscovered. It is interesting that Lamarck, in an attempt to explain the origin of new structures, suggested that they arose in response to an “inner urge.” Are any of us in a position to prove he was wrong. I like that aspect of Lamarckism because it fits my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis perfectly. If you want something, just cough it up from the huge reservoir one has at ones disposal. That is if you are still capable of evolution which seems no longer to be the case.

But to come to a more pressing matter, I suggest that this forum voluntarily change its name from the Panda’s Thumb to something less transparently Darwinian. Time is running out for Darwimpism and it is no fun to be caught with an omelet for a face. If you must use a book title, here are a couple of suggestions.

“The Material Basis of Evolution” by Richard B. Goldschmidt.


“Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law” by Leo S. Berg

Thanks for not listening. You never do.

John A. Davison

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 13, 2005 11:19 AM.

Good ol’ Career Day was the previous entry in this blog.

New news from Dover is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter