New Giraffe Species Disprove Theory of Evolution

We recently noticed this headline at Physorg: Genetic analysis uncovers four species of giraffe, not just one. The article says:

Up until now, scientists had only recognized a single species of giraffe made up of several subspecies. But, according to the most inclusive genetic analysis of giraffe relationships to date, giraffes actually aren’t one species, but four. For comparison, the genetic differences among giraffe species are at least as great as those between polar and brown bears.

[…]

The genetic analysis shows that there are four highly distinct groups of giraffe, which apparently do not mate with each other in the wild. As a result, they say, giraffes should be recognized as four distinct species. Those four species include (1) southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa), (2) Masai giraffe (G. tippelskirchi), (3) reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata), and (4) northern giraffe (G. camelopardalis), which includes the Nubian giraffe (G. c. amelopardalis) as a distinct subspecies.

We thought about it briefly, but then decided it wasn’t noteworthy enough to mention here. There are more than 400,000 known species of beetles, with new ones discovered all the time, but we don’t blog about them either. We never imagined that the creationists would find anything to say about the giraffes. But we were wrong.

Today we found New Evidence for Evolution? Giraffes Turn into . . . Giraffes! at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG). It was written by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

After briefly mentioning the new discovery, Hambo says:

These four giraffe species and the okapi are all members of the giraffe kind that God originally created. God designed each kind with a massive amount of genetic variability in their DNA. This incredible variety allows them to spread out and fill different environments all over the world (e.g., dogs in the desert and the Arctic). These new species may look a little (or a lot!) different from one another, but they are all still part of one kind and are genetically different from every other kind. These giraffe species confirm that they were created according to their kind. New species can form, but giraffes are still giraffes.

Ah yes. Ever since the days of Adam & Eve, giraffes have always been giraffes. Then Hambo promotes his latest creationist attraction:

You’ll find sculptures of what the original giraffe kind may have looked like at our Ark Encounter, south of Cincinnati.

How exciting! After that he tells us:

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a researcher and speaker here at Answers in Genesis with a PhD from Harvard University, commented on the finding:

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] Jeanson’s write-up in the Encyclopedia of American Loons says he has “a Medical PhD from Harvard.” What did he say about the giraffes? Hambo quotes the genius:

The recent giraffe study exemplifies a massive pattern of which few people are aware. “Species” as we understand them are very recent discoveries — because the tools by which we discover and identify them are new. When Charles Darwin proposed an origin for species, less than 1,800 of the modern mammal species were known to science. Global travel was much more difficult then, and genetics wasn’t even a field of science. Today, over 5,400 species of mammals are recognized.

Wow — compared to the experts on Hambo’s staff, Darwin was an ignoramus! The quote from Jeanson continues:

Since Darwin was unaware of the existence of roughly two-thirds of mammal species, could he really talk about their origins in a persuasive way? Could he make enough observations to derive the answer to their origin? The history of classification — which reveals a massive increase in species numbers within the last 200 years — raises vexing questions about the heart of the creation/evolution debate.

Yes — vexing questions! There seems little doubt that if Darwin had known about these newly-discovered giraffe species, he never would have proposed his godless theory of evolution.

Hambo doesn’t say anything else, other than referring us to some other article by Jeanson, so now we’ll stop and let you contemplate the meaning of these new giraffe species. According to Hambo, they’re evidence for special creation.

The big question is: now that you’re confronted with this giraffe news, why do you still cling to the obsolete theory of evolution, dear reader?

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

15 responses to “New Giraffe Species Disprove Theory of Evolution

  1. The more species we find, the more hyper-evolution from the original “kinds.” At what point will all this rapid evolution become too much for Ham to swallow? He will need to add another story to his boat thingie to make room for a few more kinds, so less of this wild evolution is required.

  2. Creationists hide behind the notion of “kind” to avoid the unpleasant reality that even professional crazoids like Ken Ham can’t wave away the evolution of new species. Indeed, to account for the number of species now known, the Hamites have to admit the reality of evolution–at breakneck speed and yet somehow constrained to never go too far.

    “Kind” is an entirely bogus construct which means whatever creationists need it to mean at any given moment; that is to say, it’s meaningless.

    Oh, and the notion of “species” in the modern sense goes back at least as far as Carolus Linnaeus, who lived a century before Darwin.

    When Charles Darwin proposed an origin for species, less than 1,800 of the modern mammal species were known to science. Global travel was much more difficult then, and genetics wasn’t even a field of science. Today, over 5,400 species of mammals are recognized.

    And this is evidence against evolution how, exactly?

  3. Well, duh! Obviously giraffes are giraffes and have been giraffes forever, or at least 6,000 years – same diff.

    Lookit, EVERY picture of Noah’s Ark you’ve ever seen has two giraffes right there in the front, heads sticking out of the special giraffe windows Noah cut just for them. Every. Single. Picture.

    Case closed.

  4. Why is this a problem?

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    And creationism could have predicted that there were four species? Why was god so slow to hyper-evolve giraffes? Just one kind and four species, that seems like waste of his compacting skills in the ark … their should be dozens of descendant species. Or is it a ploy of god’s that this would be the one animal on the ark that we would recognize compared to modern mammals?

    So many questions for a creationist to answer. Evolutionists have none, except for why it took this long to figure out there were different species.

  6. It’s the idiotic inability to think anything that might affect the model that gets me. Evolution would predict that close observation would discern radiating populations occupying various portions of a range, and that geographically isolated populations would be more distinct still. That is exactly what is observed. What on earth would inspire these intellectual cripples to think that this datum is countervailing?

  7. Ed notes that Ham

    will need to add another story to his boat thingie to make room for a few more kinds

    No problem, Ham has been spinning stories out of thin air for decades.

    But if he needs to add another storey to his boat thingie, he’s going to have to hit on his donors and the Kentucky tax officials for shedload more cash… 🙂

  8. Megalonyx, there is clearly no need to pay attention to continuity in the story told by the ship-shaped building.
    @docbill1351 points out, pictures of an Ark regularly feature a pair of giraffes. And the Biblical story of the Ark, as if it mattered to anyone, suggests that the Ark floats on water.

  9. “These new species may look a little (or a lot!) different from one another, but they are all still part of one kind and are genetically different from every other kind.”
    Wouldn’t this reasoning place humans solidly in the ape kind? If there is such a thing: maybe all apes belong to one larger monkey kind.

  10. “These four giraffe species and the okapi are all members of the giraffe kind that God originally created.”
    All earthly life is member of the same kind, from the sequoia tree to the pygmy possum.

    “… could he really talk about their origins in a persuasive way?”
    Ol’Hambo reaches a new level of stupidity. According to this question modern evolutionary biologists totally can.

    “Could he make enough observations to derive the answer to their origin?”
    If he could do it with a couple of birds, yes, he could have done it with four, five giraffe species as well.

  11. Eric Lipps underestimates IDiocy and creacrap: ““Kind” is an entirely bogus construct”
    IIrc Stephen Meyer somewhere on internet has tried to explain what “kind” means, but I can’t refind it. However I found this:

    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090116075216AA2i5b2

    The answers are hilarious.
    So perhaps you’re not guilty of underestimation at all.

  12. The ayatollah of Appalachia spends his days finding new ways to prove he knows nothing about evolution.

  13. Following up mnb0’s link, the page I found contained a little ad which reads thus:
    Creationists at Amazon
    amazon.co.uk/Creationists
    Low prices on Creationists,. Free UK Delivery on Eligible Orders.

    So I’m wondering how many creationists I have room for here.

  14. @Arcy
    I assume that you have more room than the head of a pin for their dancing around an issue …