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.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to stcordova]
You're arguing from ignorance against things that can be shown, by multiple lines of inquiry, did actually occur. Why? Because you and your fellow travelers do not believe? Yet you believe all sorts of credulous claptrap because its in your holy book? I find you and your approach hard to believe.

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

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?

Given that we have very, very strong evidence that this has already happend once, I'd say the odds are fairly high.
Not, that it will produce lungs. You won't get the same structure again as we already have, this is pretty much impossible. But something that would allow the to breath on land? Hm, if you give them enough time I see literally nothing that speaks against it.

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

And your evidence for that is...
What exactly?
After all, all the evidence we do have suggest that it actually did happen, so your assertion is somewhat thin.

[Goat]

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?

not quite. Species with gills can give rise to species that have gills and gulp air for extra oxygen, which can (but not necessarily) , lead to the development of air sacs to hold air, which can turn into lungs.

You won't get a species that loses gills before they have lungs.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 18 by stcordova]

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

Tarpons are a really good answer to your question. They have evolved an air bladder that is so sophisticated that if they cannot access open air they will die.

" These fish are obligate air breathers, and if they are not allowed to access the surface, they will die. The exchange of gas occurs at the surface through a rolling motion that is commonly associated with Megalops sightings. This breathing is believed to be mediated by visual cues, and the frequency of breathing is inversely correlated to the dissolved O2 content of the water in which they live"

There is an advantage though.

"They are able to survive in brackish water, waters of varying pH, and habitats with low dissolved O2 content due to their swim bladders, which they use primarily to breathe. They are also able to rise to the surface and take gulps of air, which gives them a short burst of energy. "

So yes you have a fish that can survive in water environments that are deprived of O2 you don't have to remove the water to produce this evolutionary change. Because of their "lung" they can survive in environments other fish cannot. They can also evade predatory animals that cannot go from one environment to the other. That is a pretty significant advantage.

What would induce something to develop lungs you say?

The environment does this its always the environment when you ask what prompts a change? its the environment that prompts change. That is always the answer.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

It is clear there is a very nice nesting that is blatantly obvious. The humans are within primates, the primates are within mammals, and mammals are within vertebrates -- the mammals are not within fish.

And all of 'em are vertebrates.

Your statement here exposes a complete failure to understand the science of evolution.

[H.sapiens]

From Post 6:

It is clear there is a very nice nesting that is blatantly obvious. The humans are within primates, the primates are within mammals, and mammals are within vertebrates -- the mammals are not within fish.

And all of 'em are vertebrates.

Your statement here exposes a complete failure to understand the science of evolution.

It's "willful ignorance." That's when people refuse to pay attention to any evidence that goes against their preconceived notions.

People who are wilfully ignorant sometimes disregard facts that have been proved if they can hold onto their beliefs better without recognising why their beliefs are wrong.

If there are reasonable arguments against their favourite beliefs people who are wilfully ignorant just ignore it. If things happen which dont meet what a wilfully ignorant person expects its just ignored.

In other cases, wilfully ignorant people refuse to read, hear or study in any way anything that does not pretend that everything they want to believe is true.

(from http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Willful_ignorance)

[agnosticatheist]

What would induce something to develop lungs you say?

The environment does this its always the environment when you ask what prompts a change? its the environment that prompts change. That is always the answer.

Does the environment prompt change, or is there naturally change, and the changes that increase the probability of a species' survival in a given environment are the changes that stick around?

[H.sapiens]

What would induce something to develop lungs you say?

The environment does this its always the environment when you ask what prompts a change? its the environment that prompts change. That is always the answer.

Does the environment prompt change, or is there naturally change, and the changes that increase the probability of a species' survival in a given environment are the changes that stick around?

Since the mutation occurs "today" and the selection in favor of the mutation occurs "tomorrow" it is easy to conclude that change comes first.

[mickeymudge]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

That's because we never evolved, nor were we created by anything here on earth. As my first two threads explain, We were abducted, and tortured through DNA, and even have supernatural abilities disabled. We have too many things in Science that concur.

[agnosticatheist]

What would induce something to develop lungs you say?

The environment does this its always the environment when you ask what prompts a change? its the environment that prompts change. That is always the answer.

Does the environment prompt change, or is there naturally change, and the changes that increase the probability of a species' survival in a given environment are the changes that stick around?

Since the mutation occurs "today" and the selection in favor of the mutation occurs "tomorrow" it is easy to conclude that change comes first.

I agree, but if that is indeed the case, why do we have such a narrow amount of mutation variety? Why don't we have humans with 20 legs, 30 legs, 40 legs, fingernails that split into two branches, people with 8 heads, etc? I know that there is a wide variety mutations in humans alone, and I'll add, probably a wider variety than the average person is aware of, but still, in a purely naturalistic, probabilistic universe, it *seems* like we would see way more variety, chaos, and "off the chain" stuff than we do.

Maybe this is just the way it works.

But still, the human mind, or at least my human mind, wonders why it works this way.