“Some of the specific genes identified are involved in regulating both skeletal and cardiovascular development. This COULD mean that mutations in a small number of genes are driving the giraffe’s adaptations, such as a long neck and a turbocharged cardiovascular system, in parallel, says Cavener.This study identifies genes associated with the giraffe’s adaptations, BUT DOES NOT PROVE their role in the animal’s evolution…” [Emphasis added]… Click Genome reveals why giraffes have long necks : Nature News & Comment for the rest of the article.
Note: Notice the article title “Genome reveals why giraffes have long necks” and then note the key wording “This study identifies genes associated with the giraffe’s adaptations, BUT DOES NOT PROVE their role in the animal’s evolution” — notice a disconnect. This is from the ‘well-respected’ journal Nature and look at how misleading it is. They cannot tell you what brought about the supposed mutations, whether the mutations really explain what they suggest it explains, why it happened in giraffes and not in other animals, why this has to be about “mutations” and not purposeful aspects of the creatures original design, etc. So what are they saying then, beyond the obvious? In other words, if the title reads “Genome Reveals Why Giraffes Have Long Necks” and the gist of the story is ‘because they are genetically different from other animals in certain parts of their genome,’ did you really learn anything new … given that all animals differ in their genome from other animals in some manner or degree? Clearly the intent is to suggest that Giraffes have long necks because of evolution — but this is never proven and they admit this.
Consider also that the vast, vast majority of mutations are harmful — not helpful. Are we to believe that mutations of the nature resulting in vast changes in the skeletal and cardio-vascular systems not only ‘just happened over time, through some random, unexplained mutations’ but did so in a way that impacts all of the extant giraffe population, not killing off the species as a whole (as most mutations of this extent or degree of impact would)? Is this intelligent to you? Again compare “Genome Reveals Why Giraffes Have Long Necks” with “This study identifies genes associated with the giraffe’s adaptations, BUT DOES NOT PROVE their role in the animal’s evolution” and tell me they aren’t playing games. Part of giraffe evolution would be their long necks, and the changes in blood flow management (the cardiovascular system) that would be necessary to keep blood pressure from killing them (imagine them going to eat grass and having all that blood rushing down to their brains)…
Also, do I dispute the raw data? Not at all. I can believe that “the [“scientists”] found about 70 genes in the giraffe genome that showed adaptations not seen in other mammals” [though one could easily argue that differences, or evidence of design, is just as valid as adaptations]. I can also believe that there are differences between Giraffes and Okapis (seems like a ‘no brainer’ no?]. However, I reject the notion that evolution, and especially that atheistic evolution, can explain any of this. A divine Creator/Designer creating animals similar to others, but with substantial differences as well, makes perfect sense to me. Yet, if one ignores the obvious explanation to suit their error, then they are left with the difficulty of making empty assertions, misleading people, and not being able to support their claims and falsehoods.
Finally, fancy this line: “All of these genes in the giraffe — we have them ourselves. What made giraffes unique is just to tinker with them a bit and alter them in subtle ways,” Cavener says.” What was that? Doesn’t “tinker” suggest a Tinkerer and “alter” suggest an”Alterer?” Is mere time, nature, and chance the great tinkerer or is it the divine God, Creator, and Master Craftsman Himself? It’s almost like they are saying “(1) we’re telling you a tinkerer was involved; (2) we are telling you someone had to alter these things with subtlety; (3) we are using language like “could” (indicating our uncertainty); (4) we are telling you this Nature journal article proves nothing (i.e. about evolution); and (5) we are using a misleading title and then telling you the article proves nothing on top of that (contradicting the implications of the title) — when are you going to wake up and realise we are lying to you, misdirecting you, disinforming you.”