Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[User Name]

Hahahaha...

Fish 1: Hey Fred! Quick, grow some legs so we can run back into the water where we belong.

Fish 2: Na!! I like it here. I evolved a chair on my butt and a cool umbrella outta my head. Besides, I refuse to be pressured by shallow thinkers and evolving tides. Pass the sunscreen Gill.

Funny, but not quite how it would have worked. Rather, the fish that were more able to move out of a dying body of water to a nearby body of water were more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Hence, mobility on land was a trait selected for by natural selection. With this process going on generation after generation for millennia, random mutations allowed fish with strong fins to become increasingly mobile on land and better able to survive and reproduce. Eventually, with sufficient mutations, those fins became legs.

 

[6days]

Funny, but not quite how it would have worked. Rather, the fish that were more able to move out of a dying body of water to a nearby body of water were more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Hence, mobility on land was a trait selected for by natural selection. With this process going on generation after generation for millennia, random mutations allowed fish with strong fins to become increasingly mobile on land and better able to survive and reproduce. Eventually, with sufficient mutations, those fins became legs.

I'm sure, George understands what you believe, but some of us did enjoy his humorous reply.

You belief in uphill evolution though is similar to what Darwin thought Natural selection could accomplish.... BUT, which science suggests is impossible. Those beliefs have lead evolutionists to many, many false conclusions. One example directly linked to the belief you mention is that of coelacanths. Evolutionists claimed they lived in shallow seas and had stubby limbs that might have been used for crawling. Evolutionists also claimed coelacanths had "primitive" lungs for breathing air...and, they had gone extinct about 65 million years ago.
Science has proved those beliefs total false.
Coelacanths have not gone extinct
Coelacanths live deep in the ocean.
Coelacanths have a swim bladder, not lungs.
Coelacanths have FINS, not limbs.

 

[Stripe]

I think we actually got somewhere this time.

Nope. You stamped your foot and demanded that everything be as you declare it to be without paying a single moment of attention to ideas presented from the other side.

If your aim is to protect your religion, perhaps you got somewhere. However, for those interested in a sensible discussion, it was more of the same Blablablablarian.

 

[Stripe]

Funny, but not quite how it would have worked. Rather, the fish that were more able to move out of a dying body of water to a nearby body of water were more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Hence, mobility on land was a trait selected for by natural selection. With this process going on generation after generation for millennia, random mutations allowed fish with strong fins to become increasingly mobile on land and better able to survive and reproduce. Eventually, with sufficient mutations, those fins became legs.

Nice story.

Wake us up when you've got evidence.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Silent Munter

 

[George Affleck]

Funny, but not quite how it would have worked. Rather, the fish that were more able to move out of a dying body of water to a nearby body of water were more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce. Hence, mobility on land was a trait selected for by natural selection. With this process going on generation after generation for millennia, random mutations allowed fish with strong fins to become increasingly mobile on land and better able to survive and reproduce. Eventually, with sufficient mutations, those fins became legs.

You don't think that, instead of that kind of very difficult and lengthy mutational change, fish that were able to survive without oxygen longer or the ones that did not not flop about but conserve their oxygen would have been favoured? After all, we are talking about tides. They come and go daily. All they had to do was survive till the next tide. The least they would get is a bit of new water - the best? - freedom. In fact, there are fish today that can survive a long time out of water like the climbing perch. If there are any that have pressure to evolve legs, they are it!

It would seem logical to me that the ones who made the most noise and movement would make themselves most noticeable to predators. Better to conserve energy and wait it out. This is to say nothing about the mutational load exerted on the fish who are in transition and have managed to return to their habitat. Their new adaptations would be a hindrance to survival not to mention a huge embarrassment in front of their peers! lol

I think of it like this. If you took 100 hundred humans every day for millions of years and placed them in the Atlantic, what would be the chance that somehow, sometime, a male and a female would simultaneously evolve mutations for water survival, find food, and thrive long enough to have offspring that would improve the process and finally make it to shore? And how would they survive once they did?

Hey!!!! Maybe that's where mermaids come from!!!?? I think we're on to something here...

Oh wait...what sex is a mermaid?

 

[6days]

Hey!!!! Maybe that's where mermaids come from!!!?? I think we're on to something here...

Haha..... You have evolved into a comedian!

 

[The Barbarian]

You belief in uphill evolution though is similar to what Darwin thought Natural selection could accomplish....

As you learned earlier, even many creationists now acknowledge that natural selection makes a population more fit over time. Most of the professional creationists even admit the fact of speciation. They can't deny what is observed, so they redefine "evolution" to mean "evolution of taxa high enough that no one could ever observe it in a lifetime."

BUT, which science suggests is impossible.

C'mon, even you don't believe that any more. Why lie about something so obviously false?

Those beliefs have lead evolutionists to many, many false conclusions. One example directly linked to the belief you mention is that of coelacanths. Evolutionists claimed they lived in shallow seas and had stubby limbs that might have been used for crawling.

No. You just made that up. There is no evidence for that, and no one familiar with the fossil record ever said so. This is why creationists have are regarded as dishonest. Not all of them are, not even a majority of them are. But enough of them.

Coelacanths did live in fresh water, and some them adapted to the seas, but none were equipped with legs. They had all the bones in place, but they weren't adapted to walking. Some of their close relatives did have legs, and did walk on the bottom of ponds, but even then, it was as long time before any fish had legs robust enough to walk on land.

Evolutionists also claimed coelacanths had "primitive" lungs for breathing air...

Many early fish had lungs. Ever see a goldfish gulp air? It's gullet is slightly adapted to absorb oxygen from the air. Some fish have evaginations of the gullet to increase surface area. Those are primitive lungs. A few modern fish have retained well-developed lungs. In most fish, lungs have become mere air sacs to control buoyancy. Coelacanth embryos do start to develop lungs, but they stop developing and are mere vestiges of the lungs of early Coelacanths.

and, they had gone extinct about 65 million years ago.

Until they found two modern species that had avoided extinction. As you know, neither of them exist in the fossil record. All the ancient coelacanths are extinct.

Science has proved those beliefs total false.

As you know, that is a false statement. This isn't the first time you've tried to peddle that story here.

Coelacanths have not gone extinct

In fact, all but one suborder (now one genus and two species) of coelacanths are now extinct. The order had 6 families with a large number of species. All the many different kinds of coelacanth that existed in the fossil record are extinct.

Coelacanths live deep in the ocean.

The fossil record shows that there were marine coelacanths. Just not like the ones we see today.

Coelacanths have a swim bladder, not lungs.

See above. The lungs of a coelacanth are vestigial, mere remnants of the organ that became a gas-filled swim bladder in some other fish.

Coelacanths maintain buoyancy by a different organ, a sac filled with lipids, which makes them less dense.

Coelacanths have FINS, not limbs.

Technically, the are lobed fins. They do have a humerus, ulna, and radius bone, but not adapted to walking as other lobed-fin fished developed them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
I think we actually got somewhere this time.

Nope.

Denial isn't really much good, Stipe. You didn't learn anything, but then no one thought you would.

You stamped your foot and demanded that everything be as you declare it to be without paying a single moment of attention to ideas presented from the other side.

People examined your claims and compared them to the evidence. It didn't go well for you. Sorry about that.

If your aim is to protect your religion

For a Christian, how God created living things is not a salvation issue. Our God doesn't care one way or the other what you think of it. Sorry about yours.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As you learned earlier, even many creationists now acknowledge that natural selection makes a population more fit over time. Most of the professional creationists even admit the fact of speciation. They can't deny what is observed, so they redefine "evolution" to mean "evolution of taxa high enough that no one could ever observe it in a lifetime."

Appeal to popularity much?

C'mon, even you don't believe that any more. Why lie about something so obviously false?

No. You just made that up. There is no evidence for that, and no one familiar with the fossil record ever said so. This is why creationists have are regarded as dishonest. Not all of them are, not even a majority of them are. But enough of them.

"The researchers believe that the presence of these lungs could indicate that the coelacanth ancestors may have lived in shallow waters with low oxygen levels, as opposed to the deeper environments they favor today."

From https://www.popsci.com/living-fossil-fish-has-lungs

Coelacanths did live in fresh water, and some them adapted to the seas, but none were equipped with legs. They had all the bones in place, but they weren't adapted to walking. Some of their close relatives did have legs, and did walk on the bottom of ponds, but even then, it was as long time before any fish had legs robust enough to walk on land.

Many early fish had lungs. Ever see a goldfish gulp air? It's gullet is slightly adapted to absorb oxygen from the air. Some fish have evaginations of the gullet to increase surface area. Those are primitive lungs. A few modern fish have retained well-developed lungs. In most fish, lungs have become mere air sacs to control buoyancy. Coelacanth embryos do start to develop lungs, but they stop developing and are mere vestiges of the lungs of early Coelacanths.

Until they found two modern species that had avoided extinction. As you know, neither of them exist in the fossil record. All the ancient coelacanths are extinct.

As you know, that is a false statement. This isn't the first time you've tried to peddle that story here.

In fact, all but one suborder (now one genus and two species) of coelacanths are now extinct. The order had 6 families with a large number of species. All the many different kinds of coelacanth that existed in the fossil record are extinct.

The fossil record shows that there were marine coelacanths. Just not like the ones we see today.

See above. The lungs of a coelacanth are vestigial, mere remnants of the organ that became a gas-filled swim bladder in some other fish.

Coelacanths maintain buoyancy by a different organ, a sac filled with lipids, which makes them less dense.

Technically, the are lobed fins. They do have a humerus, ulna, and radius bone, but not adapted to walking as other lobed-fin fished developed them.

I'll go through the rest of this post later when I'm not getting ready to leave for church.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The argument among theists boils down to this:

"Is God really sufficiently powerful and wise enough to create a universe in which living things can evolve into different sorts of living things?"

Most creationists don't think that He is. Most other theists accept that God is omnipotent, and therefore certainly can do it, and has done it.

Except the Bible (and Jesus Himself) discredits anything other than a 6 day creation period,

I know you want to believe this, but Scripture does not support your new version. Sorry.

So, no, it does not come down to if God is powerful or wise enough,

It does. YE creationists are unwilling to accept a God that great. Fortunately, He doesn't care if you accept the way He did it. So you can still be saved, even if you are a YE creationist.

it comes down to whether His creation shows evidence of His hand in creating.

The evidence includes genetics, fossil record, observed speciation and evolution, anatomical and embryological data, and so on. You won't accept this evidence of His creation, because it is inconsistent with your modern doctrines.

Which, as I said, won't condemn you to hell unless you make an idol of your new religious beliefs.

 

[The Barbarian]

Appeal to popularity much?

Just pointing out that even your fellow creationists don't accept your new beliefs.

"The researchers believe that the presence of these lungs could indicate that the coelacanth ancestors may have lived in shallow waters with low oxygen levels, as opposed to the deeper environments they favor today."
From https://www.popsci.com/living-fossil-fish-has-lungs

As you learned earlier, coelacanths also lived in the ocean. And that's been known for many years.

Recently, another was found in Texas, in marine sediments:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024130929.htm

You've been misled about that.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian suggestsI think we actually got somewhere this time.Denial isn't really much good, Stipe. You didn't learn anything, but then no one thought you would.People examined your claims and compared them to the evidence. It didn't go well for you. Sorry about that.For a Christian, how God created living things is not a salvation issue. Our God doesn't care one way or the other what you think of it. Sorry about yours.

Nope.

This is your MO: Blather away so that the substance of the opposition's posts is buried. There is no chance that you would ever honestly represent or respond to an idea that challenges your precious evolutionism.

I offered substance and resolution; you offer :spam:.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm sure, George understands what you believe, but some of us did enjoy his humorous reply.

You belief in uphill evolution though is similar to what Darwin thought Natural selection could accomplish.... BUT, which science suggests is impossible. Those beliefs have lead evolutionists to many, many false conclusions. One example directly linked to the belief you mention is that of coelacanths. Evolutionists claimed they lived in shallow seas and had stubby limbs that might have been used for crawling. Evolutionists also claimed coelacanths had "primitive" lungs for breathing air...and, they had gone extinct about 65 million years ago.
Science has proved those beliefs total false.
Coelacanths have not gone extinct
Coelacanths live deep in the ocean.
Coelacanths have a swim bladder, not lungs.
Coelacanths have FINS, not limbs.

Oh brother.....trying to "debate" with 6days is like trying to argue with a tape recorder.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I'm sure, George understands what you believe, but some of us did enjoy his humorous reply.

You belief in uphill evolution though is similar to what Darwin thought Natural selection could accomplish.... BUT, which science suggests is impossible. Those beliefs have lead evolutionists to many, many false conclusions. One example directly linked to the belief you mention is that of coelacanths. Evolutionists claimed they lived in shallow seas and had stubby limbs that might have been used for crawling. Evolutionists also claimed coelacanths had "primitive" lungs for breathing air...and, they had gone extinct about 65 million years ago.
Science has proved those beliefs total false.
Coelacanths have not gone extinct
Coelacanths live deep in the ocean.
Coelacanths have a swim bladder, not lungs.
Coelacanths have FINS, not limbs.

You're aware that fish that aren't coelacanths have lungs, stubby legs, breathe air, travel across land ..... right??

Also, I am not aware of the belief that coelacanths were shallow water creatures with lungs at any point in time, just that they were extinct. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard that once.
Do you have any textual support here to show you are right (likely no, you never do :chuckle?

Of course you are aware of your deceit. You're just dishonestly representing the facts again.

 

[6days]

natural selection makes a population more fit over time

Actually, both natural and artificial selection eliminates pre-existing genetic information. Once a population becomes highly adapted to a specific environment, they often are endangered and unable to survive environmental change. As evolutionary biologist said "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

Most of the professional creationists even admit the fact of speciation.

Rapid adaptation or speciation is consistent with God's Word. A monkey can adapt and change, but it remains a monkey. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

BUT, which science suggests is impossible (uphill evolution)

C'mon, even you don't believe that any more. Why lie about something so obviously false?

Science shows us the deleterious nature of mutations.

Those beliefs have lead evolutionists to many, many false conclusions. One example directly linked to the belief you mention is that of coelacanths. Evolutionists claimed they lived in shallow seas and had stubby limbs that might have been used for crawling.

No. You just made that up. There is no evidence for that, and no one familiar with the fossil record ever said so. This is why creationists have are regarded as dishonest. Not all of them are, not even a majority of them are. But enough of them.

You may not have read the literature on this. I suggest google, but can provide links if you wish, to show the faulty conclusions evolutionists made about coelacanths.

Evolutionists also claimed coelacanths had "primitive" lungs for breathing air...

Many early fish had lungs....Those are primitive lungs.

Early fish? Primitive? The fish God created on the 5th day would have had had lots of variety... Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day.

and,(evolutionists claimed that coelacanths) had gone extinct about 65 million years ago.

Until they found two modern species

Yes... a 65 or 70 million year booboo due to their false belief system. .

Coelacanths maintain buoyancy by a different organ, a sac filled with lipids, which makes them less dense.

Yes... its called a swim bladder (Not lungs like evolutionists wanted). We see you vainly fishing in shallow seas for coelacanths, but it seems God designed them to swim about 500'(150meters) deeper than your fishing hook.

Happy Fishing!

 

[6days]

You're aware that fish that aren't coelacanths have lungs, stubby legs, breathe air, travel across land ..... right??

God has created wonderful varieties of creatures!

Also, I am not aware of the belief that coelacanths were shallow water creatures with lungs at any point in time, just that they were extinct....
Of course you are aware of your deceit. You're just dishonestly representing the facts again.

Greg... You have a habit of embarrassing yourself (And even Barbarian has fallen for your false statements). You could easily google this yourself finding statements like "The coelacanth, an elusive deep-sea dweller long thought extinct, had another item added Tuesday to an already-long list of unusual physical traits: an obsolete lung lurking in its abdomen."... and "-- and probably those coelacanths inhabiting shallow waters..."https://www.seeker.com/living-fossil-coelacanth-has-an-obsolete-lung-1770251327.html


Evolutionists made numerous shoddy conclusions about coelacanths because they rejected God's Word. God created the waters to 'swarm with fish'...then evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day

 

[Greg Jennings]

God has created wonderful varieties of creatures!
Greg... You have a habit of embarrassing yourself (And even Barbarian has fallen for your false statements). You could easily google this yourself finding statements like "The coelacanth, an elusive deep-sea dweller long thought extinct, had another item added Tuesday to an already-long list of unusual physical traits: an obsolete lung lurking in its abdomen."... and "-- and probably those coelacanths inhabiting shallow waters..."https://www.seeker.com/living-fossil-coelacanth-has-an-obsolete-lung-1770251327.html


Evolutionists made numerous shoddy conclusions about coelacanths because they rejected God's Word. God created the waters to 'swarm with fish'...then evening passed and morning came, marking the fifth day

Thank you! I apologize for my doubt on the coelacanth article. It was lovely

I agree in that article A LOT of speculation is made , but I am no coelacanth evolutionary expert in specific. But what they have there is just based on what we know about fish-to-amphibian evolution. I think that swim bladder could have easily started out that way, without first being a lung.

I don't see the problem ??

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you! I apologize for my doubt on the coelacanth article. It was lovely

I agree in that article A LOT of speculation is made , but I am no coelacanth evolutionary expert in specific. But what they have there is just based on what we know about fish-to-amphibian evolution. I think that swim bladder could have easily started out that way, without first being a lung.

I don't see the problem ??

That's because there isn't a problem.

The creationist talking point is something like "coelacanths were thought to be long extinct until some living specimens were recently discovered".

But what 6days isn't telling you is that the living specimens differ from their fossil ancestors enough that they're in completely different taxonomic families.

Of course 6days has had this pointed out to him countless times by lots of people, but being the human tape recorder he is, he can only repeat the talking point ad infinitum.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, both natural and artificial selection eliminates pre-existing genetic information.

I know your religious beliefs tell you this. But in fact, natural selection has been directly observed to produce new information. Would you like me to show you the numbers again?

Once a population becomes highly adapted to a specific environment, they often are endangered and unable to survive environmental change. As evolutionary biologist said "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."

You've been misled about that. For example, a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system was observed to evolve in bacteria. Not only was a new enzyme evolved, but a regulator evolved as well. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Rapid adaptation or speciation is consistent with God's Word.

All evolution is consistent with God's word. Creationists are now admitting that new species, genera, and families evolve. If you guys retreat just a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

A monkey can adapt and change, but it remains a monkey.

You still don't get it. Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.

Science shows us the deleterious nature of mutations.

Nice try. But as you learned, there are numerous favorable mutations. Want me to show you some more?

You may not have read the literature on this.

You don't know how to read the literature. You're just copying stories from creationist websites. Do you honestly think anyone is fooled?

I suggest google, but can provide links if you wish, to show the faulty conclusions evolutionists made about coelacanths.

As you now understand, the stories they told you are false.

Early fish? Primitive? The fish God created on the 5th day would have had had lots of variety...

Sorry, your modern revision of scripture isn't evidence.

Yes... its called a swim bladder (Not lungs like evolutionists wanted).

Fish had lungs before they had swim bladders. And as you learned, modern coelacanths have vestigial lungs, and a new organ that replaces swim bladders with a lipid-filled sac.

We see you vainly fishing in shallow seas for coelacanths

They lied to you about that, too. Fresh water and coastal coelacanths went extinct millions of years ago.

You're a sucker only as long as you fail to think for yourself. Worth a try.