Evolution: Fish to Mammal Question

[PredFan]

Funny. A talking snake is impossible, alien DNA is preposterous, but a fish turning into a man, now THAT'S science!

A fish turning into a man is impossible. Science say so.

 

[PredFan]

As I understand the Theory of Evolution, fish got stranded in a high tide pond and then suddenly realized that it could walk inland, breath air, not have to be in water, found a mate (a fish of the same species must have gotten stuck in the tidal pool and made these same discoveries on the last high tide) and found a place to lay low while it slept and using its fins dug up beetle grubs to eat.

Did I miss anything?

Given the level of understanding you display on other topics, I find it easy to believe that is your level of understanding concerning the evolution of amphibians.

Fish to Amphibian Transition

And you're comfortable with the idea that a male and female from each new species spontaneously and simultaneously evolved so as to have created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds?

I mean if the male evolved first, would an identical female have to have evolved during its life so as to carry on the species?

No. A male could carry a mutant gene and mate with a female who did not have the gene. Then in a "litter" of many offspring, a few also have the gene. this gene just happens to give them an advantage over it's brothers and sisters and over all of the other litters. This gene then gets perpetuated more often and soon becomes the dominant species. It is stil not a land creature but it is much closer now. It will take many more generations before the right set of genes come along to allow a fish to crawl onto the land.

It doesn't happen all at once. it takes generations.

 

[PredFan]

I don't understand the venom in the responses.

Well Frank, most of them are liberals and they just have to add all of that crap. Whatcha gonna do? Here, listen to a fellow conservative answer your questions.

Why can't you just say, "Well, obviously a massive quantity of the new species HAD to Evolve simultaneously and spontaneously"

Because saying that would be saying something that isn't necessarily so, and could not be proven or demonstrated. Simultaneous and spontaneous evolution is not required, though I have no doubt that it may have happened many times. It only requires a mutation in a gene that gives the creature an advantage over the others. The creature then, because of this advantage, is more likely to have offspring and more likely to have offspring that also have an advantage. that is how a mutation takes over a population. Now one single mutation won't turn a fish into a lizard, that takes time and many mutations similar to the one I described.

It's on par with saying that the Theory that accounts for Earth having something as ginormous as the Moon in orbit must exist because the Moon is there

Not really, but I see your point. However, we don't claim that so......

 

[rdean]

As I understand the Theory of Evolution, fish got stranded in a high tide pond and then suddenly realized that it could walk inland, breath air, not have to be in water, found a mate (a fish of the same species must have gotten stuck in the tidal pool and made these same discoveries on the last high tide) and found a place to lay low while it slept and using its fins dug up beetle grubs to eat.

Did I miss anything?

Just a few hundred thousand years of evolution.

Believe it or not, the earth is more than six thousand years old.

I'm aware the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I never said it was.

But much like a theory that explains how the Moon got there, your Theory of how Fish turned into Mammals has several large gaping holes that defy common sense and the fossil record.

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just a few hundred thousand years of evolution.

Believe it or not, the earth is more than six thousand years old.

I'm aware the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I never said it was.

But much like a theory that explains how the Moon got there, your Theory of how Fish turned into Mammals has several large gaping holes that defy common sense and the fossil record.

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm aware the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I never said it was.

But much like a theory that explains how the Moon got there, your Theory of how Fish turned into Mammals has several large gaping holes that defy common sense and the fossil record.

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

And your link for the scientific evidence for your statements is where?

 

[PredFan]

I'm aware the Earth is older than 6,000 years, I never said it was.

But much like a theory that explains how the Moon got there, your Theory of how Fish turned into Mammals has several large gaping holes that defy common sense and the fossil record.

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

Wait what? How does theories about moon formation mean anything to evolution? Evolution only involves living things.

 

[Hollie]

I don't understand the venom in the responses.

Why can't you just say, "Well, obviously a massive quantity of the new species HAD to Evolve simultaneously and spontaneously"

It's on par with saying that the Theory that accounts for Earth having something as ginormous as the Moon in orbit must exist because the Moon is there

Not an appropriate analogy.

Just be comfortable with an act of fruit theft 6,000 years ago is all anyone needs to know,

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Funny. A talking snake is impossible, alien DNA is preposterous, but a fish turning into a man, now THAT'S science!

NO scientist ever claimed a fish turned into a man.

That would be evidence against evolution.

Some primitive species of fish, closely related to the living coelecanth, evolved into a primitive amphibian.

A primitive amphibian is not a man.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

And your link for the scientific evidence for your statements is where?

"Question over theory of lunar formation
Titanium signature poses puzzle for popular theory of Moon’s origin."

Question over theory of lunar formation : Nature News & Comment

"Findings Cast Doubt on Moon Origins"

Findings Cast Doubt on Moon Origins | Science/AAAS | News

that help?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An ignorant and noisy buttcrack who has just been "mooned". Enjoy!

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

Wait what? How does theories about moon formation mean anything to evolution? Evolution only involves living things.

It's filed under my "Theories that Don't make a lick of sense" Folder

1. The Moon is a natural satellite that was captured by Earth

2. Evolution is "force" that acts upon a very incredibly complex, redundant, fail safe protected DNA and makes it better with "Random mutation'

3. A wisp of CO2 is melting the ice caps and causing Global Climate Warming Change"

 

[hangover]

Funny. A talking snake is impossible, alien DNA is preposterous, but a fish turning into a man, now THAT'S science!

NO scientist ever claimed a fish turned into a man.

That would be evidence against evolution.

Some primitive species of fish, closely related to the living coelecanth, evolved into a primitive amphibian.

A primitive amphibian is not a man.

Bullshit. Evolution says all life came from sea.

 

[Hollie]

It didn't get much press, but scientists (94% Democrat) just had to abandon their last Theory of Moon Formation, the "Double Whack" because apparently after correcting for the fact that the Moon has no atmosphere, the isotopic evidence revels that there was no large Mars sized body that slammed into Earth; they were made from the same materials

D'oh!

Wait what? How does theories about moon formation mean anything to evolution? Evolution only involves living things.

It's filed under my "Theories that Don't make a lick of sense" Folder

1. The Moon is a natural satellite that was captured by Earth

2. Evolution is "force" that acts upon a very incredibly complex, redundant, fail safe protected DNA and makes it better with "Random mutation'

3. A wisp of CO2 is melting the ice caps and causing Global Climate Warming Change"

Item 2 in your list is a basic, fundamental and grossly incorrect misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not directional. It does not advance linearly or directionally from dumb to smart or from simple to complex. The impression you have that it does so literally reeks of something you read on a creationist website. If that is the case, you are promoting falsehoods on their behalf. Lay off the fundie creation ministries. They’re a joke. Otherwise, there certainly is a human tendency to impose our own biases of social progress onto a natural world, but that natural world does not share them.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Funny. A talking snake is impossible, alien DNA is preposterous, but a fish turning into a man, now THAT'S science!

NO scientist ever claimed a fish turned into a man.

That would be evidence against evolution.

Some primitive species of fish, closely related to the living coelecanth, evolved into a primitive amphibian.

A primitive amphibian is not a man.

Bullshit. Evolution says all life came from sea.

But no scientist ever said a fish directly turned into a man.

That would be skipping at least 300 million years of evolution.

 

[hangover]

NO scientist ever claimed a fish turned into a man.

That would be evidence against evolution.

Some primitive species of fish, closely related to the living coelecanth, evolved into a primitive amphibian.

A primitive amphibian is not a man.

Bullshit. Evolution says all life came from sea.

But no scientist ever said a fish directly turned into a man.

That would be skipping at least 300 million years of evolution.