[_ Old Earth _] New Giraffe Fossil Throws Light on Evolutionary Trend

[brother Paul]

Yes MAYBE Okapi descended from Samotherium of Africa but nowhere else....MAYBE Giraffes all over descended from very geophysically limited Okapi (whose fossils show up after them in the column)....uh huh!

 

[Ph8th]

Variation with in KIND a giraffe has always been a giraffe, man has always been a man. But I did read a fairy tale where a frog turned into a prince.
peter

 

[brother Paul]

Yes MAYBE Okapi descended from Samotherium of Africa but nowhere else....MAYBE Giraffes all over descended from very geophysically limited Okapi (whose fossils show up after them in the column)....uh huh!

Mustn't believe everything we read....the data is re-arranged and re-interpreted to appear to fit the theory....come on Barb, you are way smarter than to fall for this chicanery....and do what you can to dispel the illusion planted in young and inquiring minds...

 

[brother Paul]

Variation with in KIND a giraffe has always been a giraffe, man has always been a man. But I did read a fairy tale where a frog turned into a prince.
peter

And don't forget Pan the transitional form....

Kidding aside once Okapi always Okapi....once Giraffe always Giraffe...Okapi is evolutionarily distinctive and endemic to one area...no blending or transitioning into another creature EVER happened anywhere

 

[brother Paul]

Giraffe dates back to late early Miocene (allegedly around 20,000,000 years) while Okapi only dates to Pleistocene era (less than 1,000.000 years) therefore SOUND LOGIC demands that if one transitioned INTO another (not) then Okapi is a later transition of Giraffe not a forerunner...the conclusions of the original OP article are a lie contrived to support a myth...Because I love real science I feel very sad for the millions being brainwashed by such pseudo-science propaganda....

Anyone honest with their science PLEASE send out the truth....help dispel the intentional deception of these intentional deceivers....

 

[Barbarian]

Yes MAYBE Okapi descended from Samotherium of Africa but nowhere else....

You have it backwards. Short-necked perissodactyls were common at first. Okapi is a relict population, confined to a small area. We see short-necked giraffoids in the fossil record before longer necks.

MAYBE Giraffes all over descended from very geophysically limited Okapi (whose fossils show up after them in the column)....uh huh!

Very unlikely. Tetrapods evolved from fish, but not from any living variety found today. Remember, evolution is a branching bush, not a pole. One of the major issues creationists have trouble with, is the notion that a particular form can live on long after it gave rise to other forms. We call it the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" idea.

The discovery of the predicted transitional forms is powerful evidence, but so is the genetic evidence, showing a close family relationship between okapis and giraffes. And we know this is an indication of common descent, since we can test it with organisms of known descent.

 

[Barbarian]

Based on genetic evidence from living ruminants, molecular studies have found that Antilocapra is most closely related to modern giraffids (namely, the okapi and giraffe). Together, Antilocapra and the giraffids comprise the living extent of the Giraffoidea, a group outside the split between antelope and deer. This may explain why the horns of Antilocapra seem to have characteristics of both groups. Pronghorn evolved independently of antelope and deer, and whatever resemblances their ornamentation has to bovid horns or cervid antlers is a result of convergent evolution stemming from a more ancient common ancestor.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/06/where-the-deer-and-giraffoids-play/

This is further evidence of allometric processes involved with length of neck in giraffoids. The pronghorn is smaller then either the giraffe or the okapi, and has a shorter neck. And it fits pretty well into the graph of allometry in these organisms.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Let's hear from an honest YE creationist on that:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
(my emphasis)
Any of the numerous speciation events, Most creationists now admit it.

Are these living animals or are all these observations from fossils and bones of animals that were once alive? Are these "transitions" something that was observed while they happened?

Genesis 2:7

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Yep. The difference is, God gave man an immortal soul, and that is the difference between us and other animals.

Agreed.

God doesn't have hands. Jesus says He is a spirit and a spirit has no bones. The creationist belief twists Genesis too much.

I would have to dissagree with God not having hands..

Exodus 31:18King James Version (KJV)
18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Deuteronomy 9:10King James Version (KJV)
10 And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Exodus 34:1King James Version (KJV)
34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Deuteronomy 4:13King James Version (KJV)
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

There is rock miles deep, which are made of the packed bodies of tiny marine organisms. If you put that many in the ocean, it would be a paste, not a liquid.

Does this rock cover the globe or is it a localized area?

And the large animals, if you add up all the fossils:

I thought that fossils were quite few compared to the number of animals that were supposed to be alive at the time of the flood?

 

[Barbarian]

Are these living animals or are all these observations from fossils and bones of animals that were once alive? Are these "transitions" something that was observed while they happened?

Of course, it's impossible for anyone to be old enough to directly observe them. However, the claim that you can't know anything you didn't directly observe is demonstrably false. The fact that the theory accurately predicted many of these transitionals is sufficient, an the fact that genetic data verifies it, is sufficient. As creationist Kurt Wise admits, this is powerful evidence for evolution.

I would have to dissagree with God not having hands..

Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says that spirits have no bodies. So it comes down to whether or not you believe Him.

John 4:24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The "finger of God" is figurative, as are all anthropomorphisms of Him.

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Clearly, God does not change His mind, being omniscient. He doesn't make mistakes. So confusing these literary anthropomorphisms with Jesus' clear testimony, is a bad idea, I think.

(Barbarian notes that there are, in sedimentary rock, miles-deep piles of tiny marine organisms, that would have clogged the seas if they all lived even within a few thousand years of each other.

Does this rock cover the globe or is it a localized area?

Most of the Earth has this rock. In many places, we can see it being subducted into the mantle, so there was at one time, much more of it. The Grand Canyon formation has about 1,000 cubic miles of such rock. The Himalaya Mountains have many, many times that amount.[/QUOTE]

I thought that fossils were quite few compared to the number of animals that were supposed to be alive at the time of the flood?

No, there are huge numbers of fossils. If all the fossils known to exist lived at one time, they would have made the world unliveable.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Of course, it's impossible for anyone to be old enough to directly observe them. However, the claim that you can't know anything you didn't directly observe is demonstrably false. The fact that the theory accurately predicted many of these transitionals is sufficient, an the fact that genetic data verifies it, is sufficient. As creationist Kurt Wise admits, this is powerful evidence for evolution.

So, you have the bones of animals that are similar and state that you are 100% sure that animal "a" slowly changed into animal "b" due to the fact that they have similar bone structure? Yet it was not observed at all.

What if I took a litter of my pups, pure bread whatever. Say I had 9 pups. I then took one pup, at 1 month and killed it and buried the bones. I did this for all the pups one every month but the last one was a full adult dog , the ninth pup. Then I took the bones and stated that this animal "A" a small dog species evolved into animal "B" a large dog species. There is no way you could tell the true facts of them all being brothers and sisters of the same breed because fossils have no DNA. The bones, when laid out would prove my tale perfectly when in fact it is not near the truth.

The same could happen with bones from other dogs being presented as the slow change from a chihuahua to a great dane when in fact they are all still dogs.

Bones, in my opinion are a static, snapshot of the fact that one animal lived. No more, no less. You cannot tell how many brothers and sisters it had, how many kids it had, if it was full grown or an juvenile, or what it's great grand father was....That is all specutlation and assumption that is used to back the evolutionary model.

Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says that spirits have no bodies. So it comes down to whether or not you believe Him.

John 4:24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The "finger of God" is figurative, as are all anthropomorphisms of Him.

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Clearly, God does not change His mind, being omniscient. He doesn't make mistakes. So confusing these literary anthropomorphisms with Jesus' clear testimony, is a bad idea, I think.

Jesus was the part of the trinity that created the universe. He formed Adam from the earth with His own hands.

John 1:3King James Version (KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16King James Version (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

John 1:10King James Version (KJV)
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
1 Corinthians 8:6King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Most of the Earth has this rock. In many places, we can see it being subducted into the mantle, so there was at one time, much more of it. The Grand Canyon formation has about 1,000 cubic miles of such rock. The Himalaya Mountains have many, many times that amount.

I have never heard of this before. Where I live I am close to two very popular rock types that cover vast parts of the earths surface. Limestone and granite. I have never heard of this mile thick layer of rock that is all over the surface of the globe. Can you tell me what it is called?

No, there are huge numbers of fossils. If all the fossils known to exist lived at one time, they would have made the world unliveable.

If this is true, how do we store them all. That must be a huge amount of bones.
And, still no missing link?
With that many fossils you would think they would have the missing link.

Is the "Tree of life" not just hundreds of bushes where one animal came off the ark and was fruitful and multiplied to produce hundreds of variations of the original "kind" of animal. Examples would be the many kinds of cats, dogs, horses, hawks, sparrows and such?

 

[Barbarian]

So, you have the bones of animals that are similar

Much more than that. We have transitional structures within these fossils that were predicted by evolutionary theory before they were found. This is compelling evidence. And the fact that genetic tests on organisms living today, shows the same phylogenies that are based on anatomy and fossil evidence, further confirms it.

and state that you are 100% sure

We aren't 100% sure that the Sun won't blow up tomorrow. You aren't 100% sure that all the air molecules in the room won't go to one corner and suffocate you. Science only works on probabilities, considering them confirmed when the likelihoods are so great as to make it foolish to deny the evidence. And yes, the notion that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe, has been repeatedly refuted.

What if I took a litter of my pups, pure bread whatever. Say I had 9 pups. I then took one pup, at 1 month and killed it and buried the bones. I did this for all the pups one every month but the last one was a full adult dog , the ninth pup. Then I took the bones and stated that this animal "A" a small dog species evolved into animal "B" a large dog species.

Do you honestly think that's how it works? Seriously?

There is no way you could tell the true facts of them all being brothers and sisters of the same breed because fossils have no DNA.

For mammals, birds, and reptiles, it's easy. Juveniles are identifiable. So we'd see that they were just of the same species, but different ages.

Bones, in my opinion are a static, snapshot of the fact that one animal lived. No more, no less. You cannot tell how many brothers and sisters it had, how many kids it had, if it was full grown or an juvenile, or what it's great grand father was....That is all specutlation and assumption that is used to back the evolutionary model.

As you see, you're wrong about that. Juvenile mammals are rather obvious. And a skeleton will tell you all sorts of things. For example, the location and size of muscle insertions will tell much about the behavior of the animal. Presence or absence of Haversian canals tells you about the metabolic and activity levels of the animal. The teeth will tell you much about its diet. The ribs will tell you a great deal about it's respiratory system. And so on. You've been given a lot of false information.

And rarely, exceptionally well-preserved fossils can go even further. The discovery of pneumatized bones in some dinosaurs confirmed that the respiratory system of birds did not evolve in birds, but was present in their dinosaur ancestors.

A little preserved heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecules) in a T-rex was found to be most like that of birds, rather than like that of other reptiles, again confirming a prediction made over a hundred years ago.

The oxygen isotope ratios in the fossil of an animal spending a lot of time in the water will tell us whether it was mostly aquatic or mostly marine.

And so on. It's an amazing thing, just how much we can learn from these. Would you like to learn more about it?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He says that spirits have no bodies. So it comes down to whether or not you believe Him.

John 4:24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The "finger of God" is figurative, as are all anthropomorphisms of Him.

Exodus 32:14 So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Clearly, God does not change His mind, being omniscient. He doesn't make mistakes. So confusing these literary anthropomorphisms with Jesus' clear testimony, is a bad idea, I think.

Jesus was the part of the trinity that created the universe. He formed Adam from the earth with His own hands.

He had no hands until He was born as a man. Again, it comes down to whether or not you believe Him.

Barbarian said: ↑
Most of the Earth has this rock. In many places, we can see it being subducted into the mantle, so there was at one time, much more of it. The Grand Canyon formation has about 1,000 cubic miles of such rock. The Himalaya Mountains have many, many times that amount.

I have never heard of this before. Where I live I am close to two very popular rock types that cover vast parts of the earths surface. Limestone and granite. I have never heard of this mile thick layer of rock that is all over the surface of the globe.

Miles thick. And it's often buried under other rock that came later.

Can you tell me what it is called?

Limestone, sandstone, shale, etc. When it's been deeply buried, and under heat and pressure, it is often metamorphized to marble, sandstone to quartzite, etc.

Barbarian said: ↑
No, there are huge numbers of fossils. If all the fossils known to exist lived at one time, they would have made the world unliveable.

If this is true, how do we store them all. That must be a huge amount of bones.

It is a huge amount, although most organisms that lived on the earth didn't have bones. Those are a fairly recent thing. But the vertebrate fossils in the Karoo formation number in the billions.

And, still no missing link?

That's what a transitional is. As you see, even honest creationists admit that there are many of them. If you doubt this, pick any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one for you.

Is the "Tree of life" not just hundreds of bushes where one animal came off the ark and was fruitful and multiplied to produce hundreds of variations of the original "kind" of animal.

The evidence says "no." And scripture does not say it happened.

[quote[Examples would be the many kinds of cats, dogs, horses, hawks, sparrows and such?[/quote]

Anatomical data, genetics, transitional fossils, among other things, say that is not the case.

 

[Ph8th]

Don't confuse theory and fact. Fossils show variation with in kind. We do not see frogs turning into dogs nor do we see whales or monkeys turning into people.... we still have monkeys. Darwins book origins of species Full titile Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Man I bet the aclu loves this.
It has been over 150 years and it is still theory .......... But being fed to children as fact........
These are just new names of the battles the war remains the same the world against God. Victory is His ......... He gave us choice. what side of that battle line do you stand on?

peter

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry Okapi is a late comer not a relict example….and that’s the ONSERVABLE point which shows the OP article to be intentionally deceptive (especially the engineered artistic depiction) and most Antilocapra are clearly a totally different animal endemic to a totally different geophysical region in which we find no Samotherium OR giraffes. And why bring in a third element not even implied in the OP? I sense a second attempt at diversion coming….deal with the OP

 

[brother Paul]

Don't confuse theory and fact. Fossils show variation within kind. We do not see frogs turning into dogs nor do we see whales or monkeys turning into people.... we still have monkeys. Darwins book origins of species Full titile Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Man I bet the aclu loves this.
It has been over 150 years and it is still theory .......... But being fed to children as fact........
These are just new names of the battles the war remains the same the world against God. Victory is His ......... He gave us choice. what side of that battle line do you stand on?

peter

Amen!

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry Okapi is a late comer not a relict example….and that’s the ONSERVABLE point which shows the OP article to be intentionally deceptive

Sorry, that's not the case. While forest-dwelling animals leave very few fossils, there are enough to make it clear that okapids existed prior to long-necked giraffes. Paleotragus,for example,was an okapid that lived in the Miocene. The two known species showed a trend toward smaller size over time. So okapis are a relict population of a much larger group that was spread through Africa and Eurasia.

Antilocapra

are clearly a totally different animal endemic to a totally different geophysical region

Yes. They are most closely related to giraffes, and no doubt evolved in the Americas from giraffids that crossed the land bridge with many others like horses and bovids. Notice that they show the same allometry with regard to neck length. And recently, this genetic clue was found:

Chromosome Res. 2013 Aug;21(5):447-60. doi: 10.1007/s10577-013-9361-0. Epub 2013 Jul 30.
Molecular cytogenetic insights to the phylogenetic affinities of the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana).
While numerous fusions (mostly Robertsonian) have accumulated in the giraffe's karyotype (Giraffa camelopardalis, Giraffidae, 2n = 30), that of the pronghorn (Antilocapra americana, Antilocapridae, 2n = 58) is very similar to the hypothesised pecoran ancestral state (2n = 58).

And why bring in a third element not even implied in the OP?

Further demonstration of allometry in giraffids.

 

[Barbarian]

Don't confuse theory and fact.

I'm showing you facts.

Fossils show variation with in kind.

If you think birds and dinosaurs are one kind.

We do not see frogs turning into dogs nor do we see whales or monkeys turning into people....

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. You actually think that's what the theory says?

we still have monkeys.

Yes. That's a common misconception. Evolution normally happens by branching, and primitive forms (such as okapis) often live on long after other forms evolve from them.

Darwins book origins of species Full titile Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Man I bet the aclu loves this.

"Races" is what people called species in those days. Even "Answers in Genesis" warned their followers not to use that argument. It's based on a misunderstanding of what the word meant then and now.

It has been over 150 years and it is still theory ..........

From Answers in Genesis "Arguments we think Creationists should not use":
“Evolution is just a theory.” What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc.

These are just new names of the battles the war remains the same the world against God.

Not all creationists stand against God. Many are otherwise devout and good Christians. The "life ex nihilo" doctrine is mostly from YE creationists, and this does stand against God's word in Genesis. However, it's not a salvation issue.

He gave us choice. what side of that battle line do you stand on?

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry, that's not the case. While forest-dwelling animals leave very few fossils, there are enough to make it clear that okapids existed prior to long-necked giraffes. Paleotragus,for example,was an okapid that lived in the Miocene. The two known species showed a trend toward smaller size over time. So okapis are a relict population of a much larger group that was spread through Africa and Eurasia.

Again with the side step…you’re a good dancer. Paleotragus IS classified (a man-made system based on anatomical similarity) as an okapid but IS not the creature we call Okapi . It is more relatable to the Antilocapra you mentioned (and then grouped for anatomical similarity or design).

The “OKAPI” (shown clearly in the engineered artistic mis-representation of the OP) is definitely and without doubt a later creature (so maybe his neck radically shrank….)…Go back to the OKAPI?SAM article and see if you cannot sense the propaganda….it is so apparent….

If you think birds and dinosaurs are one kind.

Feathered birds precede Archeopteryx so no I would never make such a brainwashed assumption. One is avian and always has been, the other reptilian and always has been. Birds are not and never were “Dinosaurs” (giant lizards). But I refuse to go off topic here so please do not bother….

 

[Ph8th]

I'm showing you facts.

The only fact that comes from a fossil is it died. If there is a spear in its head we might come to the conclusion it died of brain injury but we do not know. You call these transitional fossils that is a big jump you do not know its daddy or mommy. You can compare it to other fossils and see similarity but that is it, those similarities should lead you to see they had the same designer but that would defeat your agenda.
If you think birds and dinosaurs are one kind.

We had both DuH!

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

What are you talking about when you say evolution?

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Micro- evolution is science it is the only one listed that is science
You do know what science is? Right?
assuming you don't or are hoping no one else does.it is
science
[sahy-uh ns] /ˈsaɪ əns/

noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

You actually think that's what the theory says?

theory

: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5
: a plausible ?r scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Yes. That's a common misconception. Evolution normally happens by branching, and primitive forms (such as okapis) often live on long after other forms evolve from them.

How do you know when and how long?

"Races" is what people called species in those days. Even "Answers in Genesis" warned their followers not to use that argument. It's based on a misunderstanding of what the word meant then and now.

You sure like to dance I know you read the title of the book Charlie was very clear he separated the 2 and I find it amazing you would try to muddy the water. I own a copy of orgins of species I think it would do you good to read it............. Oh you all ready have ...... but are playing ignorant to what it says and who Charlie was and his beliefs. These were the same beliefs that Hitler embraced and used to justify his desire to exterminate the Jews.

However, it's not a salvation issue.

Do you think leading people away from truth and away from God is not a salvation issue?

He gave us choice. what side of that battle line do you stand on?
My God says don't murder or harm children ..... I stand on that side of the line
My God says marriage is in between a man and a woman...... I stand on that side of the line..
My God says homosexuality is an abomination ..... I stand on that side of the line
My God says don't work don't eat..... I stand on that side of the line
My God says you will have no other god before him..... I stand on that side of the line

2 Peter 3:3-6(NASB)
The Coming Day of the Lord

3 Know this first of all, that n the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

Have a good day!
peter

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that's not the case. While forest-dwelling animals leave very few fossils, there are enough to make it clear that okapids existed prior to long-necked giraffes. Paleotragus,for example,was an okapid that lived in the Miocene. The two known species showed a trend toward smaller size over time. So okapis are a relict population of a much larger group that was spread through Africa and Eurasia.

Again with the side step…you’re a good dancer. Paleotragus IS classified (a man-made system based on anatomical similarity) as an okapid but IS not the creature we call Okapi .

It's just one of many okapids that lived during the Miocene. As you see, the okapi is a relict species, confined to a small area of what was once a large and geographially-diverse group. Incidentally, most creastionists now admit the evolution of new species, genera and families, so they really shouldn't have any objection to the common descent of a subfamily.

It is more relatable to the Antilocapra you mentioned (and then grouped for anatomical similarity or design).

Turns out the body plan of okapis, pronghorns, and giraffes are all basically the same, only modified by allometric changes due to absolute change in body size. So far, all the giraffids I've checked, fit pretty nicely into the graph of neck length over cube root of body mass.

It's just the way things are.

Barbarian observes:
If you think birds and dinosaurs are one kind.

Feathered birds precede Archeopteryx so no I would never make such a brainwashed assumption.

Feathered dinosaurs precede both birds and Archaeopteryx, so it's very clear. Further, at least some the group of dinosaurs that preceded birds are now known to have pneumatized bones, indicating that the "avian respiratory system", like feathers evolved in dinosaurs before there were birds. I should point out that Arachaeopteryx is an advanced dinosaur, and almost certainly not on the line that led to birds. But it's close. We don't actually know how old that species is, because it doesn't fossilize well. It might be much older than the few specimens we have might indicate.

One is avian and always has been, the other reptilian and always has been.

See above. "Avian" characteristics like feathers and pneumatized bones are now clearly derived from dinosaur ancestors which had them.

Birds are not and never were “Dinosaurs” (giant lizards).

Dinosaurs are very distantly related to lizards, and closely related to birds. It's sort of the way that humans and lungfish are more closely related to each other genetically than lungfish are to other kinds of fish. Dinosaur heme taken from a T-rex bone turned out to be closest to that of birds, not that of other reptiles.

But I refuse to go off topic here so please do not bother….

Think about it. It's another step forward.