Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism? If this theory were put in reverse, then human sailors would spontaneously begin to develop gills in their multi-millenial preparation to become fish... The theory of evolution cannot explain these problems so it conviniently overlooks and ignores them. I have read lot's of literature both for and against evolution and my opinion is that Life on Earth is just too amazing and creative to be the product of random, chaotic natural selection. Cheers.
12 comments
If all your predators are sea bound, the ability to survive, say, a few minutes out of water would mean the difference between life and death. Or perhaps a more viable food source became available on dry land (plant life?) Again, likely manifesting as an ability to "hold one's breath" on dry land, and growing from there. Sailors have little need to become fish. In any case they need to go in the water, they have mechanical assistance, and when it's involuntary...well, unfortunately, there's not enough time to make the necessary evolution. That being a few minutes as opposed to a few million YEARS, dim bulb.
Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism?
Because the sea is the place where most of the other animals that liked to eat them lived.
Surviving a few minutes on land and being able to move around a little can be very useful to a marine animal. Even an extra minute or two may spell the difference between life and death, long enough for a predator to give up and go away. At the time sea life made its transition to the land, most of the major predators lived in the ocean, so a prey animal that could get up onto land was reasonably safe. Once on land, they found food sources that their water-bound relatives couldn't exploit. Their ability to breathe air let them survive in water that contained little or no oxygen, further broadening the range of environments that they could inhabit. And later, their ability to move across dry land from one body of water to another let them escape pools that were drying up. The toolkit that they developed was so effective that they've never stopped using it. We see examples of fish and amphibians that still inhabit all of those niches even today, using the same strategies that their ancestors developed.
The theory of evolution cannot explain these problems so it conviniently overlooks and ignores them.
Not only is this a lie, it's pure projection.
"Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism?"
the Arowana is an air breathing fish due to some spots in the amazon River having very low O2 levelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arowana
Evolution dose not work that way
LOL Wut?
Thats nice.. ohh And Also EVOLUTION DOSE NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Evolution is not spontaneous and it takes millions of years.
Life on Earth is also so flawed and just-good-enough, that Intelligent Design doesn't make sense. Why would an omniscient being design our eyes with a blind spot? Octopuses don't have that. Why do we have vitamin-C making genes, but they are turned off? Why do we have an appendix? Where's the intelligence behind all these flaws? Evolution-wise it makes sense; as in it works well enough to make the species have offspring that survives to have offspring.
Why would sailors try and become fish ?
That would only be useful if their boat sank and it would make more sense to become better sailors, and have better boats, which is what has actually happened, because girls are more likely to sleep with the ones who survive their voyages.
This amazing and creative Life on Earth that you, apparently, have read about, did it include Tapeworm ? Or those Wasps that paralyse insects and lay their eggs inside them so the larvae will have fresh meat available upon hatching ?
Surface eaters, who over time may specialize on an abundant breed that hover over the water or congregate in the shallows.
"The theory of evolution cannot explain these problems so it conviniently overlooks and ignores them."
You mean the non-problem of (some of)us being on boats for many generations? In case you haven't noticed you don't have to breathe water to be a sailor, kinda the first point of the boat. Even if you used pearl divers as an example you're still talking about land dwellers.
"evolution cannot explain these problems"
Go away, put your little heads together and come back when you actually have a problem.
"Why would a fish need to develop the capacity to breathe on land if it is a sea-bound organism?"
A change in environmental conditions. Perhaps there was less water, or their food supply had declined. If at first generations developed limited ability to come to the surface and then over generations that increased if there is a need for it then it might happen.
"If this theory were put in reverse, then human sailors would spontaneously begin to develop gills in their multi-millenial preparation to become fish..."
That's where you're mistaken where it comes to evolution. It's not a "spontaneous" process. It also doesn't work in reverse. Any development would be forward even if it leads to mankind developing gills.
These are not problems of evolution these are problems with your understanding of evolution. They are not over looked they are just non issues. I think all you have read in favor of evolution was in the same books as the literature against it because you clearly don't understand evolution.
Finally natural selection is not a random process. Nor is it chaotic. Evolution and natural selection could very easy be the product of the Programer of the Infinite and his universal source code.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
