sargasm said:
just by reading your take on darwins theory and the giraffe, its clear you didnt get it at all. You dont have a clear grasp on what survival of the fittest is so look it up because i dont feel like posting it again and again.
I can't resist...
Purely Darwinian evolution tells us that giraffe's necks extended as a response to the environmental pressure of food.
Does it? Please give the reference. There are many possible different
reasons. For example, the long neck could have evolved in response to
sexual preference, rather like the peacock's tail.
What could have possibly caused a land animal to transform within a few generations into a sea animal?
Absolutely nothing. Please give a reference to where someone (other than a
creationist) claims that such gross changes happen "within a few
generations". Even better, read your own words: "But evolution does not
allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal"
Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms.
Not at all. First, here's a possible explanation for your claim: Most animals are
well-fitted to their environment, so evolutionary forces are small. The
environment changes and the pressures increase, so evolution goes faster
until we are left with well-fitted animals and evolution slows. The result is
long periods (and I mean long) with little change followed by fairly rapid (i.e.,
hundreds of generations) of change. The time when intermediate forms exist
is small in comparison to the total time. This indicates that the chance of
fossils (very small to start with) is minimal in the case of intermediate forms.
Second, the point is actually moot, as there
is evidence of
intermediate forms. Try here for a simple start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html