“The Tallest Tale Is the textbook version of giraffe evolution — a bit of a stretch. By Stephen Jay Gould.” So began an article in the May 1996, issue of Natural History magazine that caught my eye. As I continued to read, it became clear that this popular evolutionary writer, in a long flowery essay, was trying to make one point clear. That how the giraffe, with its long neck and legs, came about by evolutionary processes is unexplainable, and that the version found in so many textbooks in schools, IS FALSE.
Let’s listen to his words:
I raise this theme because I recently realized that the primary “old standard,” the classic textbook illustration of our preferences for Darwinian evolution, arose in the same manner as an entrenched and ubiquitous example based on an assumed weight of historical tradition that simply does not exist…I made a survey of all major high-school textbooks in biology. Every single one — no exceptions — began its chapter on evolution by first discussing Lamarck’s theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and then presenting Darwin’s theory of natural selection as a preferable alternative. All texts then use the same example to illustrate Darwinian superiority — the giraffe’s neck. (pp. 18-19)
On the scientific accuracy of this theory:
Giraffes, we are told, got long necks in order to browse the leaves at the tops of acacia trees, thereby winning access to a steady source of food available to no other mammal. Larmarck, the texts continue, explained the evolution of long necks by arguing that giraffes stretched and stretched during life, elongated their necks in the process and then passed the benefits along to their offspring by altered heredity.
This lovely idea may embody the cardinal virtue of effort rewarded, but heredity, alas, does not operate in such a manner. A neck stretched during life cannot alter the genes that influence neck length and offspring cannot reap any genetic reward from parental striving. (pp 19-20)
On why this example of evolution with the giraffe’s neck is bad, he says:
If we choose a weak and foolish speculation as a primary textbook illustration (falsely assuming that the tale possesses weight of history and a sanction in evidence), then we are in for trouble as critics properly nail the particular weakness and then assume that the whole theory must be in danger if supporters choose such a fatuous case as a primary illustration. (p. 56)
On why this falsehood is still in the textbooks he says:
In the realm of ideas, current use of the giraffe’s neck as the classic case of Darwinian evolution does not grow from firm and continuous historical roots. The standard story, in fact, is both fatuous and unsupported…Why then have we been bamboozled into accepting the usual tale without questioning? I suspect two primary reasons, we love a sensible and satisfying story and we are disinclined to challenge apparent authority (such as textbooks). (p. 57)
His conclusion on this issue:
Darwinian evolution may be both true and powerful, but if we continue to illustrate our conviction with an indefensible, unsupported, entirely speculative and basically rather silly story, then we are clothing a thing of beauty in rags and we should be ashamed, “for the apparel oft proclaims the man.” (p. 57)
Indeed Dr. Gould, the theory of evolution has been clothed in rags BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE TO PUT ON IT! They have presented their very best and it is still indefensible, unsupported, entirely speculative and a totally silly story. Bless be the God and Creator forever.
