Barbarian observes:
This is why we aren't going to evolve a second set of hands, even though that would certainly be useful. Each step in such evolution has to be of some benefit.
Besides that...it would be impossible.
It's impossible, because the intermediate steps are not adaptive. As you see in these examples, such things can only happen where incremental changes are also adaptive.
Barbarian observes:
That's happened several times. The key is that each time, there was a benefit. For example, in our line, the fins were useful for pushing along on the bottom of shallow ponds, got more efficient over time, so that legs evolved before there were land animals. There are fish in the Sargasso sea that have fins capable of grasping seaweed, and mudskippers have fins that serve as legs, allowing them to even climb trees.
You act as if there are millions upon millions of enificial mutations occurring in each person.
No, that's wrong. Let's say that one organism in a million has a beneficial mutation. Let's say that a population of 5 million organisms exists. So there will be five beneficial mutations per generation. In a thousand generations, that's five thousand beneficial mutations. To put that in context, humans have something like 30,000 genes.
..an in the "evolving fish" they all were directed at the fin.
No. For example, lungs were the process of evolving as well, from simple sacs in the esophagus of fish. And because there was more force on the fin-legs (these were lobed-fin fish, remember, so the major bones of our limbs were already there, long before they were used for walking on the bottoms of ponds) the bones became more robust and the connections to the spine became stronger. Again, you see that the adaptations for moving around underwater were the ones that made it possible for these fish to begin to walk on land.
All you've done here was present a theory.
No. I'm just citing the fossil evidence. Would you like me to show you some of it?
Then assumed certain fish such as the mudskipper evolved using homology...
Perhaps you don't know what "homology" means. Homology would be like the bones of oceanic lobed fin fish used for swimming, being the same as the bones you use for walking around. You're thinking of analogy, where mudskipper legs are analogous to those of lobed-fin fish, but are constructed of different tissues in different ways. This is why the "common creator" argument crashes and burns.
common body parts created by a commmon creator would be expected to be similar
Your assumption fails because it assumes what it intends to prove, and because your belief can't explain why whales swim with vertical motions while fish swim with horizontal ones. On the other hand, homology can easily show why this is the case.
A gulping goldfish demonstrates evolutionism?
"Evolutionism",as you might know, is a sort of strawman creationists invent because evolutionary theory is impossible to refute. However, a goldfish gulping air shows you how lungs evolved. Fish can gulp air and absorb it in their esophagus, as a suppliment, when gills can't get enough oxygen. Some fish have enlarged the surface of the esophagus, making it more efficient. Others have developed sacs and a few have lungs.
The reason lungs could evolve, is that each increment was advantageous. Do you see why the idea of lungs evolving from gills is impossible, but the change from gulping air in a straight esophagus to lungs is advantageous at every step?
The truth is in the details. There's no royal road to biology, either.
