Biological diversity does not suggest we evolved from fish

[stcordova]

Humans are more similar to chimps than they are to trees. This was well known by creationists even before Darwin.

We might superficially then claim chimps and humans must have descended from a common ancestor. And we could rinse and repeat and say, "we're more similar to fish than to trees as well so we fish and humans must have descended from a common ancestor of fish and humans."

The problem then is we follow the logic carefully, we must therefore conclude we didn't evolve from fish, at best fish and humans descended from some unspecified a common ancestor.

So let me for the sake of argument assume evolutionism is true. What can we conclude from these diagrams:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Humans

Evolutionists however will give the following non-sequitur:

Vertebrates descend from Vetebrates
Mammals descend from Mammals
Primates descend from Primates
Humans descend from Humans

Therefore: Humans descended from Fish

Here is a diagram at the anatomical level that shows a very nice hierarchical pattern from universe review.

http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-vertebrates.jpg




and then regarding the bone morphogenetic proteins

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1- ... 18-gr1.jpg




What these diagrams show is that Fish will not give birth to anything but something fish like. It won't give rise to Primates!

As Michael Denton pointed out, superficially the structure of diversity in the biosphere suggest common descent, but the problem is it also suggest that there won't be any transitionals even in principle. Hence a careful study of the diagrams might lead one to think special creation is a better explanation since it is evident that fish don't give any hint of being ancestors to primates.

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

The evolutionary presumption is common descent is indicated by persistence of a characteristic. For example, as seen in the diagrams above, creatures with lungs presumably arose from creatures with lungs.

An evolutionist will say, "look at all those creatures with lungs, they obviously arose from other creatures with lungs, because creatures with lungs are expected to give rise to other creatures with lungs." Fine, if that's the case, then creatures with lungs didn't arise from creatures without lungs! Evolutionists can't even see the contradictions in their own assumptions.

What that diagram shows is creatures with lungs are separate and distinct from creatures without. The only place creatures with gills give birth to creatures with lungs is in the imagination of evolutionists, not what is actually seen in the data.

Hey, here is a suggestion:
Instead of telling us what "evolutionists" think, why not read HERE, IN THIS VERY THREAD, what "evolutionists" are explaining to you, what they ACTUALLY think?
You might learn something.
I know, it's more difficult then to actually attack their position, because attacking strawmen is always easier (after all: That's what you set strawmen up for), but it is certainly much more honest.

Imagine I went around telling everybody:
"See, the problem with creationists is, that they believe because the universe is full of gases, it has been created by their god farting. So, the creationists believe a god is the origin of the universe, just because the universe contains gases."
Would that be honest?
Imagine then, that you actually adress this point, and start explaining why this is not a proper presentation of your position... just to find me then repeat the exact same misinformation about your position again...
Would you think I still was honest? Or would you start thinking that I was deliberatly being dishonest?

See, given that any other poste in this thread so far has been correcting your misconseption, your insistence of holding on to this misrepresentation can almost only be read as deliberate misrepresentation.

I really don't want to call you a liar, I promise...
But if you insist on deliberatly misrepresenting our position any further, this is the only conclusion I can arrive at.

[sfs]

The evolutionary presumption is common descent is indicated by persistence of a characteristic. For example, as seen in the diagrams above, creatures with lungs presumably arose from creatures with lungs.

An evolutionist will say, "look at all those creatures with lungs, they obviously arose from other creatures with lungs, because creatures with lungs are expected to give rise to other creatures with lungs." Fine, if that's the case, then creatures with lungs didn't arise from creatures without lungs! Evolutionists can't even see the contradictions in their own assumptions.

It's possible that evolutionary biologists are less intelligent and less informed about biology than the average sixth grader, but that doesn't seem like a very good bet.

What that diagram shows is creatures with lungs are separate and distinct from creatures without. The only place creatures with gills give birth to creatures with lungs is in the imagination of evolutionists, not what is actually seen in the data.

Er, you are aware that there are many species that have both gills and lungs, right?

[stcordova]

I'll give evolutionists a chance to declare what they believe.

Given both the diagram above and what is observed in the present day, is it a high probability event a creature with no lungs gives birth to something with lungs?

Simple question? High or low probability.

My answer: low.

Given both the diagram above and what is observed in the present day, is it a high probability event a creature without lungs lungs gives birth to something without lungs?

Simple question? High or low probability.

My answer: high.


Ergo, the evolution of lungs from gills is uh, not really indicated by any data we have in the present nor the structure of biological diversity. The only "evidence" purely gill breathing systems can evolve into a lung breathing system is uh, in the imagination of evolutionists!


PS
Lungfish have primitive lungs, but that is no proof a fish that had no lungs will evolve a lung! In fact, they supposedly haven't evolved much for hundreds of millions of years.

[stcordova]

Er, you are aware that there are many species that have both gills and lungs, right?

Species with only gills give rise to species with only gills. The lungfish (that has both) doesn't change that fact, right?

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

...high probability event a creature without lungs lungs gives birth to something without lungs?

Simple question? High or low probability.

My answer: high.

No, low.
That's why we don't believe that this has happend.
And if you ever actually listend to an "evolutionist", instead of just making stuff up, you might understand why your werid misrepresentation of evolution is completly invalide...
But for that, you needed to be actually interessted in what we actually do believe, which doesn't seem likely.

As I've said:
Creationism is extremly unlikely, because gods don't fart...

[stcordova]

high probability event a creature without lungs lungs gives birth to something without lungs?

Simple question? High or low probability.

My answer: high.

Freddy_Scissorhands responds:

No, low.

So you're saying something without lungs (like say a tree) has a low probability of giving birth to something without lungs.

Let's see, a tree doesn't have lungs. It gives birth to another tree without lungs. I'd say that's pretty high probability that something without lungs gives birth to something without lungs.

And if you ever actually listend to an "evolutionist",

I'm listening to you, aren't I. So do you stand by your answer?

No, low.

[Clownboat]

Er, you are aware that there are many species that have both gills and lungs, right?

Species with only gills give rise to species with only gills. The lungfish (that has both) doesn't change that fact, right?

What mechanism do you propose to explain how lungfish got both gills and lungs? I would like to compare your thoughts with my current thinking.
Thanks,

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

So you're saying something without lungs (like say a tree) has a low probability of giving birth to something without lungs.

Let's see, a tree doesn't have lungs. It gives birth to another tree without lungs. I'd say that's pretty high probability that something without lungs gives birth to something without lungs.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong part.
So, let me make this clear:
No, something that has no lungs will give birth to something with no lungs.
And something with lungs will give birth to something with lungs.
And, btw, this is completly in accordance to evolution.
If you think that evolution claims that at some point some animal that had no lungs gave birth to something that suddenly had lungs, over one generation, your understanding of evolution is extremly poor indeed.

Let's make this very simple:
Evolution neither demands nor even allows that one organism gives birth to an animal that is a different species, or has a completly different body plant. Each offspring (hybridization ignoring here for a moment) is the same species and has the same body-structure as their parents, just with some minor variation (similar f.e. to the ones you have from your parents).
I hope this is now clear.

[stcordova]

If you think that evolution claims that at some point some animal that had no lungs gave birth to something that suddenly had lungs, over one generation, your understanding of evolution is extremly poor indeed.

No, that's not what I think evolutionism claims.

So take something without lungs, like a fish with only gills. What would induce it to start evolving lungs?

Put it in tank of water and drain the water till it nearly dies? Do that for a few million generations of fish, and out pops lungs or some reasonable facsimile?

Or how about putting it in a tank that has a simulated shore with lots of non-fish food that it could live off of if it could only evolve lungs and digest that sort of food.

Do you believe the probability is high or low that it will evolve lungs or something that will enable it to breath like a creature with lungs?

If you don't like that scenario, at least suggest what it would take to get it to evolve something like a lung, and why it should be reasonably probable.

As it stands, the probability is high something without lungs will not have descendants with lungs.

The only place where this can happen is in the imagination of evolutionists, not that we actually have verified direct observations, just imagination force fitted to the fossil record.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 18 by stcordova]

Air bladders can be used for buoyancy control, oxygen retention, and are an evolutionary relative of lungs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder#Evolution