egafd.com

eroticartist wrote:

> It is not a giraffe no matter what Darwinists call it...I would
> say that it is a type of goat!


DNA extracted from fossils confirms that it is a giraffe. It is related to the goat, but only very distantly.

eroticartist wrote:

> Go to Specsavers and get your eyes tested. It's nothing like a
> modern giraffe could be horselike, zebra or goat...


Horses and zebras are a different line of evolution entirely. They belong to the order Perissodactyla. Giraffes and goats belong to the order Artiodactyla.

Nobody need have their eyes tested, as proto-giraffes and modern giraffes have almost exactly the same DNA, rendering any eye tests unnecessary.

Eroticartist,

Exactly how many fecking horses do you know that have horns?
There are unicorns of course but then you know that already.

That is clearly some form of giraffe, from further back down the evolutionary track.

You've just your blinkers on about it's neck and legs.

In your other thread here



You claim that alien males were forced to co-habit with chimps, in order to survive, implying that we're the result.

So by that rationale, did the modern giraffe get it's longer neck from E.T. shagging a Samotherium? !hump3!

It is nothing like a modern giraffe except to Darwinists...

It is a giraffe, except to the narrow minded.

It looks like a giraffe, walks like a giraffe and has the DNA of a giraffe, so you come to the conclusion it's a horse-goat!

Despite being given evidence by JamesW and others, I doubt you'll take it on board, as you've stated on other threads, you won't change your views.

A picture is worth a million words...

"You claim that alien males were forced to co-habit with chimps, in order to survive, implying that we're the result."

Humans at that time were hairy beasts and barely distinguishable from apes.

The drawing is nothing like a giraffe!

I just use my eyes and I reiterate the drawing is nothing liike a modern giraffe despite Darwinian propaganda...

How are those giraffes? One is clearly a goat, and the other's like a little horse. Just because somethings got four legs, a body, a neck and a head does not mean it's the same as a giraffe. And who drew those those pictures anyway? How could they have seen the creature if it only existed millions of years ago? Just because you've seen some bones, it does not mean that you know what the things skin covering, fat, muscle, eyes, intelligence, temperment and running speed was like. It's all guess work. This kind of academic crap that you see everywhere on the BBC makes me bloody sick. It's just the bloke who has the most letters after his name saying that something is the way he says it is. And then everyone else gets so intimidated and starts agreeing with him. They're none the bloody wiser than all the rest of us about the world! I mean, they keep on about bleeding evolution. How the hell is evolution supposed to work anyway? I saw someone years ago on the telly talking about some little birds. He said they evolved beaks so that they could crack open the nuts that grew on the trees nearby and not starve. Well, how long would it have taken to evolve beaks? They'd have all starved to death waiting for their beaks to grow, generation after generation, so there wouldn't have been those birds who WERE able to crack open the nuts in the first place. But there are....According to the laws of physics, bees shouldn't be able to fly. But they do....Answer that David bloody Attenborough!

That's another thing - Attenborough! (that's probably not spelt correctly, but up until now, I've lived a life devoid of ever having to spell Attenborough - Daved or Dickie....) You can't turn on the telly these days without seeing some bloody idiot looking at a herd of wildebeests or something and praising up bleeding Attenborough! He's not responsable for them. He's just looking at them the same as we are.

Anyway, I didn't come here to complain or anything. I have been away from this site for a long time, so....Hello....again? It's just exposure to alchohol AND Richard bloody cock-less Dawkins brings out the worst in me.

And besides that it's a bloody goat!

"And who drew those those pictures anyway?" A good point!

I would say some pro- Darwinist!