1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

like a fish out of water...

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Helen, Apr 27, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some research I am currently doing brought me to an article in the New Scientist of 19 August, 2000, entitled "One Small Step for Fish, One Giant Leap for Us." Here is the opening paragraph -- please keep in mind this is an evolution-oriented magazine:

    What is it really like being a fish out of water? Well, you can't breathe for one thing. Your skin dries up. So does the rest of your body because your kidneys aren't designed to conserve fluid. And without legs you can't hed for home. Even if you could, how would you find your way? You can't see or hear properly, and neither can you smell. Then there's the problem of lunch. Your jaws aren't made for catching and eating terrestrial fare. Anyway, your digestive system couldn't cope with it. And if, against all the odds, you survive and find an equally stranded mate, reproduction is unthinkable. p. 28

    And yet the article goes on to try to explain how some new fossil discoveries have encouraged evolutionists to think this really happened. On page 31, the following quote can be found:

    "The transition between the fish-like condition in panderichthyids and the tetrapod-like condition in Acanthostega must have really been quite rapid...and it seems to have occurred at the same time as changes to the limbs"

    and, I might add, at the same time the kidneys, digestive tract, circulatory system, eyes and ears and so much else must also have changed quite rapidly.

    Right...

    In other words, they are going to cling to evolution no matter what, even with evidence running against it genetically, biologically, and historically.

    Here is how the article ends:

    "The current reconstructions are wrong in almost every respect," says Clack. She and Ahlberg will first focus on the brain case. "We already know how weird that is and we've got some ideas about what it's going to tell us," says Clack. After that they will look at other areas including the neck and pelvic regions, which are hardly known. "Potentially we'll have to rethink the whole thing again with the new Ichthyostega study comeing up," she says.

    But evolution happened, you know....

    Really! It DID! It's a matter of faith, though, not of evidence, as so many articles, including this one, silently testify to.

    It was material such as this, and even more bluntly stated, about 30 years ago, which were part of my path from evolution to creation. The evidence screams 'creation', and I finally had ears to hear.
     
    #1 Helen, Apr 27, 2003
  2. mdkluge

    mdkluge Guest

    Whatever the evidence Helen summarized it is at best evidence of problems within evolution. It has nothing to do with creation.

    We still await breathlessly the evidence for creation that actually has something to do with creation.
     
    #2 mdkluge, Apr 27, 2003
  3. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    "The transition between the fish-like condition in panderichthyids and the tetrapod-like condition in Acanthostega must have really been quite rapid...and it seems to have occurred at the same time as changes to the limbs"

    Nope. For example, the digestive tract of primitive amphibians today is not remarkably different than that of many fish today. Nor is the circulatory system.

    "Lungfishes add a little more complexity to the heart. Remember, lungfishes are the only extant fish to have a separate pulmonary system. Likewise, they are also the first vertebrates to show a division in labor of the right and left halves of the heart. It has long been thought that the lungfish, amphibian, and reptile systems is inefficient. If you look at blood flow, it would appear that oxygenated and deoxygenated blood mixes together making the system inefficient; however, there are ways of keeping the blood flow virtually separate without really having the heart wholly or partially separated. What lungfish have is a partial interatrial septum and a partial interventricular septum. Blood from the lungs goes in one side and from the body through another. There is not a complete separation between the two, but there is enough so that very little mixing occurs."

    http://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/zy/0301/Topic12/Topic12.html#lungfish

    So lungfish, which are the closest living relatives to the primive legged fish that lead to tetrapods, are already almost completely amphibian-like in that regard. Precisely what one would expect for an intermediate between fish and tetrapods.

    It's that way in kidneys, too. Jawed fish and amphibians have a mesonephros, a primitive sort of kidney. Amniotes (reptiles, birds, and mammals) develop a mesonephros as embyros, but this later develops into a proper kidney.

    With regard to ears, we find that many amphibians lack proper ears, and instead use a "lateral line" system, found otherwise only in fish. So we again see transitions between fish and vertebrates in this respect.

    I'm not sure that there is any difference at all between the eyes of some fish and amphibians. Do you know of any?

    [ April 28, 2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]
     
    #3 The Galatian, Apr 27, 2003
  4. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    #4 Paul of Eugene, Apr 28, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...