hello, it's magyak101. You remember that cryptozoology thread we had a long time ago? You had once asked about what i considered proof against macroevolution, but I suggested we discuss it in another thread, because it wasn't related. Well, I'm willing to have that discussion, if you like. Purely for the sake of a good debate and to gain knowledge ont he topic. Interested?

Sure. Whaddaya got?

Deep breath. Well, you know what a giraffe is, right? I'm going to assume you do. Well, can you tell me (in a very short and simple answer) just about how long it took for the giraffe to fully evolve into what it is today?
(obviously no one knows for sure, just a quick estimate, please.

Evolve from what? If you mean from the supposed origins of life itself, then I'll say about a billion or more years. That's the approximate age of the earliest fossilised traces of life on earth. If you mean from shorter-necked versions of themselves, then maybe around 25,000 years. Why?

Quick question: is this Lamarck's theory? (in a nutshell, Lamarck argued that giraffes got their long necks because they stretched them, causing them to grow longer; this trait was then passed down to their offspring). If so, that's not the same as macroevolution, because physical changes that happened after birth would not be reflected in the parents' DNA.

An example of macroevolution would be if some pre-giraffes had DNA that gave them slightly longer necks than their brethren. These pre-giraffes would then be able to reach more food than the shorter-necked ones, increasing their chances of survival and passing on their genetic material. Eventually the shorter-necked DNA dies out because the shorter-necked pre-giraffes are at too much of a disadvantage to survive and reproduce in significant numbers.

Oops forgot to ping sorry.

Aha, I hope not; I'm not too fond of Lamarck's theory. While there is some evidence to support it, it doesn't make quite as much sense to me as Darwin's genetic alternative. Feel free to tell us why it's credible, though, if you think so. I'm not exactly an expert on Lamarck nor his ideas.

I don't think it's credible at all. I was asking Magyak101 if that's what they were referring to. I pinged you so you could be included. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Oh, yeah, I'd assumed that was what you were doing. I was just seeing if I could get anyone else's two cents on different types of evolution and their credibility while we're waiting. Sorry.

Edit: I'm bad at this off-topic discussion stuff. I rarely visit this section with the intention of posting, and whenever I do I just get way off of the intended direction.

I understand. I have similar issues with forums.

As for my two cents: I think it's an incomplete explanation. Evolution does explain how diversified life can occur, but it's a really big coincidence that random genetic mutations lead to a working world all on their own.