Giraffes have 7 neck bones – still not enough to prove evolution!

Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com

Giraffes have seven cervical vertebrae (neck bones). Given that a giraffe's neck is so much longer than a human's, some people are surprised to learn that humans also have seven neck bones. The fact of the matter is that nearly every mammal has seven neck bones – mice, horses, bats, and even whales. I've heard it proposed that this is because all mammals have descended from a common ancestor which also had seven neck bones, so the near universal number of seven cervical vertebrae is strong evidence for evolution. Blah, blah, blah.

The whole thing sounds very contrived to me so I started thinking about ways to test this theory. Like any scientific theory, we should be able to use it to make predictions, right? So if different species of mammals have the same number of vertebrae because they are descended from the same common ancestor, what else might I expect to be true?

The first thing I would check is if all mammals do indeed have seven neck bones. Is that what we find? The short answer is, no. As has already been said, most do but the two-toed sloth only has 5-7 neck bones. The three-toed sloth has 8-10. Manatee only have 6. What's amusing is that evolution would predict that the two-toed and three-toed sloths are even more closely related than giraffes and humans, yet even the sloths don't share the same number of neck bones as each other! So this prediction not only fails, it fails miserably!

Another thing we might predict is that if mammals have the same number of neck bones because of common descent from a single ancestor, there would be a similar number of vertebrae found in other parts of the spine. A quick check of Wiki shows this isn't the case. In the thoracic vertebrae, numbers vary between 12-15 in different species of mammals. In the lumbar region, most mammals have 6-7 vertebrae but some species can have up to 20. The number of vertebrae in the sacral region varies between 3-10. Any similarity in the number of vertebrae in the mammalian spine exists only in the cervical area and even that isn't universal. Another failed prediction!

Besides the spine, we might predict there should be a discernible pattern in the number of ribs among different mammal species. Well, there isn't any. Mammals have varying numbers of ribs between 6-15 pairs. Even in the much-championed, “horse-evolution” sequence, there are reversals back and forth in the number of ribs between alleged ancestor and the supposed transitions leading up to the modern horse. Still another fail.

Next, we're going to broaden this a little. Just like evolutionists claim the coincidental number of mammal neck bones is the result of common descent, they also claim the similarity in the forelimbs of humans and other animals (whale fins, bird wings, lizard feet, etc), is the result of common descent. The say the ubiquitous pattern of radius/ulna, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges is evidence that all these different creatures have descended from a common ancestor who had these features originally. Follow me now: so if the bones in our forelimbs resemble bird wings because we both have a common ancestor, might we also expect that birds to have seven neck bones? We might, but they don't. Birds have far more cervical vertebrae, usually between 13-25. So if our similar forelimbs is evidence for common descent, wouldn't our different number of neck bones be evidence against common descent? Another fail for evolution!

Now, if all mammals (well, we've already seen it's not all mammals) have the same number of cervical vertebrae, could we expect something similar to occur among the members of other classes? Do all birds, for example, have the same number of cervical vertebrae? No. Do all reptiles? No. Do all amphibians? No. Why does common descent “explain” this common feature among mammals when we don't see a similar thing occur among the other classes of animals? Fail.

Finally, birds are alleged to have evolved from dinosaurs. If descent with modification is true, then wouldn't there be some correlation in the number of cervical vertebrae between birds and dinosaurs? Well, there isn't any. Long-necked sauropods had up to 19 cervical vertebrae. Most bipedal dinosaurs had less. Birds have up to 25. Fail. Fail. Fail.

Time after time, we see that things we might predict if evolution were true aren't found. Any claim that the common number of neck bones among mammals is evidence of descent from a common ancestor is nothing more than special pleading. If the same number of vertebrae is evidence for evolution, than differing numbers should be evidence against the theory. Of course, evolutionists don't see it that way. They're perfectly content with a theory that could explain the same number of neck bones in different species but doesn't require it. In other words, they have a scientific theory that doesn't really explain or predict anything.

Not a very good “theory,” is it?