I agree that it is certainly easier to believe in intelligent design, but it’s just not the case.

It’s a lot easier to believe that the universe is infinite (i.e. it’s always been here and always will be there). Even Einstein favored the belief that the universe is infinite, yet all of his theories favored a big bang and finite universe.

It’s also a lot easier to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, which was the belief for most of mankind’s existence. The sun and the moon both move across the sky and it seems that they are rotating the Earth.

But, as we know now, it’s obvious that the Sun is the center of the solar system and neither are close to the center of the universe. We also have overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and other scientific theories such as evolution, gravity, and the greenhouse effect.

I don’t see how a random mutation could encourage another one, especially a complimentary one. It just seems too impossible to just happen like this.

I think it is easier to believe in a God that created us. Even a God that has no beginning.

If I looked at things the way you do that would mean all the sophistication and complexity is from the extremely rare positive genetic mutations that just happen to compliment each other.

I don’t have enough faith to believe in that.

My question is. How could it be possible for all of these random mutations to happen at the same time?

I understand your concern. Understand that it only takes one small random mutation to encourage the other ones. For example, maybe a giraffe with a slightly longer neck came first. The longer neck was favorable, so those genes were passed. But, the giraffes were lightheaded and it wasn’t until another random mutation with the beginnings of the rete mirabile that allowed the giraffe’s heart to work harder. Then, further mutations took place over millions of years.

(Note: that was just a crude example, and I don’t claim to be an expert on evolution and evolution of the giraffe).

Advantageous mutations are rare (and thus advantageous simultaneous mutations even rarer), but odds are greatly increased when there’s a large time frame. I can’t even comprehend how long 30 million years is. Can you? Homo Sapiens have only been around for 250,000 years. That’s 0.25 million years.

My question is. How could it be possible for all of these random mutations to happen at the same time?

Are not all of these necessary for survival given the example of the giraffe lowering his head and bringing it back up?

Also if they are random then what are the chances that mutations would even cooperate with each other?

To me these functions see much more intentional. I don’t see how random mutations could be this coordinated.

So for this to work from an evolutionary standpoint the giraffe would have to develop all of these other special functions in order to not die when he goes for a drink. And all of these features just happen to evolve at the same time and just happen to compensate each other? How could this happen from random processes. How could evolution compensate for a future need?

The features evolved over at least 30 million years from the point where the a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffidae”>Giraffidae family evolved from a common ancestor to the deer. The earliest giraffid is the Climacoceras, which looks very similar to a deer. Today, there are only two giraffids left: the giraffe and the okapi. There are ten other families or giraffids (all extinct now) that thrived 20 million years ago.

Natural selection is the process that guides evolution and guided the creation of the giraffe’s neck from the aforementioned deer-like creature. Why the giraffe needed a neck is still debated among scientists, but the fact it evolved is not. Genetic mutations slowly altered (i.e. over 30 million years) the giraffe’s circulatory system as the length of the neck also was altered. For whatever reason, the giraffes that had the mutations were the fittest to reproduce. This could have been because the giraffes with shorter necks were not favored sexually, or they did not survive as well with respect to changes in their environment or climate.

Random mutations to the giraffe’s heart, rete mirabile, and skin in the lower legs were all favored along with the longer necks. Of course, some giraffes died young or had health issues. Evolution isn’t perfect. Case in point: birth defects in humans. Some random mutations just don’t work out for the best.

Note that all humans also have unique DNA. Children have a unique blend of genes from their parents. Humans have strong immune systems because stronger immune systems were favored in natural selection. Of course, we all have varying levels of immune systems, since evolution is an ongoing process.

I hope that explains why Ken Ham’s “logical argument” just isn’t very logical to me. But, I did learn quite a bit about giraffids through this

So for this to work from an evolutionary standpoint the giraffe would have to develop all of these other special functions in order to not die when he goes for a drink. And all of these features just happen to evolve at the same time and just happen to compensate each other? How could this happen from random processes. How could evolution compensate for a future need?

The fact that this is not unique to giraffes, to me, just points to a common creator.

Second, the argument presented by Ken Ham is entirely non-scientific. He states that “it’s so obvious that the very first giraffes had to have these special features right from the beginning.”

The assumption here (again, non-scientific) assumes that the “special features” could not have evolved. Well, the features aren’t so special, since they are far from unique to giraffes. In addition, it’s not fair to assume that features evolve independently of one another. Multiple features can change at the same time via random mutations. Selective advantage ensures that the best random mutations are favored.

Back to the fossil record, I see that there are many creationists claiming that there are no fossils that show a mutation between a short neck and a long neck. That’s false.

Andrew: “but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.”

Well perhaps we can look at something other then fossils.

How, for example, would a giraffe evolve given the info they share in this short audio clip: http://cdn.answersingenesis.com/audio/answers-daily/volume-063/38.mp3

It depends if there was a scientific consensus or not. From what I’ve read, global cooling in the 70s never had significant scientific support. Therefore, I wouldn’t have believed it (if I was alive in the 70s), unless I was naive enough to believe the media.