Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

Amphibians.

Explain to me why a useless physiological strait necessarily indicates inevitable extinction.

I would consult a biologist, or even a biology teacher if you want specific explainations to your questions.

 

http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/lungfish.html

 

What about Muddy Mudskipper?

 

What is Muddy Mudskipper?
As for the one word answer "Amphibians", my point was about the first ever creature to leave the water. Amphibians already have, programmed into their genes, organs that can process air and water. That's the whole point. How did that happen. The fact that they exist is not evidence that fish turned into them. I never said useless physiology necessitates extinction, but it is not condusive to reproduction. Thats how evolution is supposed to work. Strong characteristics are carried on more to the next generation because the animal with those characteristics survives, and breeds better.

It doesn't make sense for the first fish to take the land to follow this theory. Pointless characteristics such as lungs that don't work put that fish at a disadvantage against fish whose genetic advantages have more relevance, such as speed, or tracking food, or whatever. Stuff that doesn't have a purpose is edited out of the species. That is how natural selection (which in Darwins theory controls evolution) works. Strong abnormalities survive, and become commonplace. Useless protolungs do not create strength. Why did they prosper enough to form, as you say, Amphibians?

 

Stimpy's idol. Stimpy won 47 million dollars in a Gritty Kitty Litter contest and moved to Hollywood and meet Muddy Mudskipper (who happened to be a breathing fish that lived in mudflats).

Strong abnormalities survive. Let's see here, in the water, there are countless fishes consuming all of the floura and fauna (eachother). On land, there is lots of moss, maybe conifers and ferns, etc. to eat that nothing is eating.

The first fishes to gain enough ability to live on land were like "Fuck dis place, Ize gonna get eaten by da man if I stay in dis nice comfy waterin hole, ize gonna get me somma dat dere land..." and then summa their offspring were like "Man, my lungs suck, Ize gonna die if'n ize a stayin up on dis here land" so went back to the water and got eaten by the man, and summa their other offspring were like "Fuck da man, ize gonna stay here and eat all this bichen lichen and boss moss" cuz they got the better lungs than the other ones who pussied out and got eaten by da man. After a few million generations, the ones with the better lungs, well they could move faster than the other ones (more ability to extract 02) so they ate the other ones. The other ones were like "Fuck this place, Ize gonna go down in dat water and hope my prehensile gills work well enough dat da man ain't gonna eat up on my ass", but a few were like "I'ze gonna stay on da land, cuz I know da man lives in da water too, so I'ze just gotta make it da best dat I can, and maybe someday Ize gonna be da man".

And that's how George W. Bush became The Man.

 

Yeah, but what about the thousands of his fishy forefathers whose lungs would have had to be pointless extra organs, serving no purpopse at all, yet somehow clinging on to be carried down the generations until that first fish could actually think "Fuck dis palce" as you say.

Plus, most adaptations spread due to their usefulness, ensuring better survival for their owner.
(e.g. one bird is freakishly born with a weird shaped beak, which, coincidently, allows it to eat different foods, it survives to have many kids, with weird beaks, who all can eat extra kinds of food, eventually a whole species of weird shaped beak birds develop, just because that first bird got on better than the rest)

The first fish with useless lungs has never breathed air, so it's body cannot have adapted as a reaction to the air. For generations these lung develop, without any of the fish having breathed air.

This is just like a bird developing a weird shaped beak, perfect for eating foods that don't exist yet, and on the benefits of that useless fact, managing to create a whole sub-species of bird with that (currently useless) shaped beak. It doesn't work like that evolution (is supposed to) work because of the advantages a particular adaptation has to the INDIVIDUAL animal that first begins to develop it.

In order to develop lungs the fish's DNA would have to have prior knowledge of how to process air, (which it has never had any experience of) and foresight, (to keep on an adaptation that will no purpose for many, many generations. Evolution is supoosed to be understandable through maths. (strong animals dominate the percentages of the next generation with their DNA) It is supposed to be an unguided, unintelligent fact about breeding, devoid of prior knowledge (or any knowledge, it being a chemical process) and devoid of foresight. Therefore fish that can't breath air yet, going on to develop lungs over a thousand useless generations defies the whole theory of evolution and how it works!

Please, someone out there-tell me you can see the logic!

 

It could have been 'random' (stress the quotes) forces. One time, a school of fish (a couple with protolungs) was washed up on the shore by a tsunami, or chased by a shark, or whatever. Sometimes I get this silly bug and have to use (can't remember the word- something like allegory, but means attributing human intelligence to animals in order to use the animals to describe their own life, any takers??) to describe things, and now all I want is to know the word to match this definition!!!!

Refer to Appendix B.

Want to know something interesting about appendixes? Apparently, people born with small appendixes are more likely to get appendicitus. This caused (in the past) people with larger appendices to be favored by natural selection, even though the organ does absolutely nothing for us. Now, with modern medicine being able to treat appendicitus, and spot the risk factors for appendicitus (small appendix) and remove the appendix, people who have genes that do not favor this organ are no longer being nominated for the darwin award. More and more people are being born without an appendix, which could be caused by the fact that their parents, who had genes for an atrophied appendix (which might be one gene for an appendix (from one parent), and one gene to leave one out (from the other parent)) have survived due to a change in the environment that we live in (appendicitus is no longer lethal due to modern medicine). This means that 2 parents with a "I don't want no fukin' appendix manhhh" combined with the "Keep the fukin appendix mannn" gene have a 25% chance of producing an offspring with 2 votes to abolish the appendix (which is all it takes in a sexocracy). This is greatly simplified, of course...

Evolution is not based on the DNA having knowledge.

Maybe you will get something from the appendix story above. A lot of times, useless, potentially deadly genes are passed down through many generations, until a time comes when these genes are effected by environmental circumstance.

Argumentum ad logicum. Logic applied incorrectly results in a fallacy.

 

(can't remember the word- something like allegory, but means attributing human intelligence to animals in order to use the animals to describe their own life, any takers??) Kharakov

Personification.

Therefore fish that can't breath air yet, going on to develop lungs over a thousand useless generations defies the whole theory of evolution and how it works!

Please, someone out there-tell me you can see the logic! astralgoldfish


What you say makes sense, but it assumes that there never was a time or place when a fish that had an ability to spend a little more time out of water proliferated due to that slight difference. The lungfish seems to me to be a very obvious example to show that such an occurence happened.
I am not saying I feel we are the result of evolutionary forces exclusively, cuz I don't think so, just that evolution is a viable, and plausible mechanism.

 

Im not sure BG but were you looking for:

Anthropomorphism

Two Cents on the whole 'Gradual Evolutionism' theory (which used to be the favourite among Evolutionists).

See.. IF Evolution was made of many many incremental changes, you would have (ie) a Fish who spends millions of years trying to compete and survive with non-functioning 'Lung Tissue' forming in his guts.

Everything we know about living things tells us this is very unhelpful and innefficient for the would-be lung bearing fish.

This became such a problem for Evolutionists that they have (for the most part) thrown out any idea's of 'Gradually increasing complexity'.

Now they say the only reasonable explanation is that a gross mutation took place within one generation (a fish being born with .. wow.. formed working lungs) and then it coincidently found another fish who was born with formed working lungs.

The two fish (happily opposite sex) then swam/walked away from the original gene pool (this is important) and started their own gene pool.

The other theory is that DNA has intelligence.
Example - DNA 'knows' that the fish will eventually need lungs - so it keeps creating new 'lung tissue lumps' inside the fish (every generation) ... even though these lumps of tissue are 'unusable' for now.. the DNA is aware that eventually when enough tissue develops it will become lungs and therefore make the fish better.

Still.. even if you go with the first theory about the 'spontaneous mutation' of entire organs 'as is' - you still have to wonder how the DNA 'knew' to do that?

 

I believe his last words were something along the lines of "oh god, what have I done?"

 

darwinism has FAR more proof to it than creationism.... period.

 

Anthropomorphism works too, but no, personification was what I meant, thanks anyway.


Darwin did not recount his opus at the end, that is creationist wishful thinking.
Although amanda may be right with the quote..........lol

 

thanx..

 

? What? What do you mean by gradually increasing complexity? The universe still seems as complex today as it did 10 (or even 10 billion) years ago, even though I know a little bit more about it and people seem to be a little better at manipulating it.

Do you have any concept of how big the earth is? There are zillions of things happening at every moment. Don't you think there is a slight chance over a few 100 million years that one or 2 'wierd' things happen?

 

Well most Cosmologists wont agree with you but that is not what we were talking about anyway.

Complexity, as in, A single cell organism with 3-4 organs and maybe 3 working parts.. to a .. lets say Horse with many organs and millions of cells with hundreds of working parts.

More specifically.. an amino acid.. developing into a stunning array of DNA strands.

It doesnt work that way.
As many of those 'Zillions' of thing happening will include just as many 'things' which are very bad or would work againsts the amazing Fish-boy and the equally surprising Fish-girl.

The other thing in this... its not like 'Anything Goes' just because many things 'can' happen.

As if we can just ascribe millions of years and say "well chances are that a statue of david would be carved by wind and hail somewhere!"

Again.. its because there would be just as many 'millions' of chances that sandstorms and erosion would tear down the statue-in-progess.

But anyway... modern Evolutionists (approx last 20 years) do not accept that tiny incremental changes could have happened (or exist in the fossil record).
[example.. our fish with tiny lung tissues.. the spawn with lumps of tissue. the spawn of that with 'almost working' lung bags.. then finally the one with lungs that work]

They do indeed believe it was a regular fish.. who then begat offspring with . . pow... lungs!

They also insist this needed to happen millions of times over millions of years over and over among millions of creatures.

Sorry but if you dont like it - take it up with Dawkins and Co.
They have now decided that the beliefs you held are no longer 'Fact' and now spontaneous generation is fact.

 

I think the problem with this argument is that the "creationists" refuse to acknowledge just how OLD the universe is... Due to this, they have a hard time trying to accept the huge changes that have lead all the way from tiny bacteria, all the way up to us (and every other living this in the universe)...

They don't see that this has happened over BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years...

 

There are really two or three different 'camps' of Creationists.

- Many believe the Earth and Universe itself may be very very old - but they stick to the idea that life was created a long time ago (approx 6,000)

- Many others 'young earthers' will say that life and the planet itself was created approx 6,000 years ago.

- The other group (and fastest growing) are called 'ID'ers. They tend to believe the Universe is pretty ancient - and might even believe life is ancient too, but they are convinced it was created by Intelligent Design.

........

Evolutionists have a different scenario going on.

Obviously, if its billions of chances 'to happen' its just as many chances to 'not happen'.

Its one thing to say a fish was born with lungs... but you are also asking people to believe this amazing 1-in-a-billion occurance happened BILLIONS and BILLIONS of times (as Amanda stresses it).

Now here it the funny thing.

The age of the Earth has ... well really nothing .. nothing at all to do with Evolutionism.

Except in this sense.. Evolutionists NEED the Earth to be Billions of years old in order to spread out their theory of 'molecules to man' wide enough that is allegedly 'could' happen.

But like I say.. it doesnt actually work that way because its just as likely the fish is born with a pair of lungs- as it is for the fish to be born with no brain.

(So every 'lucky' event for the fish has at least one 'unlucky' event.)
Doesnt matter if you assign TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of years.. the odds stay the same over time.

 

I haven't really heard that argument before, very nice.

 

how the hell do explain fossils that are hundreds of thousands of years old, dinosaurs, cave paintings, the fossil record being layered from simple to complex organisms. creationists cant prove anything so they use junk science to conform to their faith. creationist proponents shouldnt even be conisdered scientists cause they dont have a open mind to actual evidence, they cant support there creationist ideas all they can try to do is misrepresent what evolution is.

 

This is why it's known as survival of the fittest... If a fish was born without a brain, it would not be able to survive (heck, it would be dead before it was even born).

Mind you, I'm no expert in this field, so I'm not going to get too drawn into this argument... just wanted to add my own point of view.