[_ Old Earth _] Transitional species. Specifically ones with lungs & gi

[Orion]

According to evolution, there was a time where species began to emerge from the oceans to survive on land. Some questions/comments:

1. What would have been the catalyst for the beginnings of the formation of the organs that would be needed to breath on land?

2. At some point in their evolution, such a creature would actually have both gills and a rudimentary lung capable of receiving oxygen from the air. Logically, due to the time of evolutionary scales, this creature would have had this setup for thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. If "survival of the fittest" is true, what would be the reason to loose the ability of breathing under water, because evolution theory states this creature, that began to live on land, eventually returned to the oceans as the mammals we find there today?

3. There are many different forms of land animals on the planet today. This is also true of the many forms of incest, arachnid, worms, etc. Because of this fact, . . . . it is logical to conclude that it would be impossible for only ONE form of ocean life to attain the physical characteristic of being able to breath on land, and that one specimine to be the "genesis" of every form of land creature we see today. Therefore, the mutation of 'the formation of a rudimentary lung' would have to have been accomplished in a variety of different ocean creatures in order to have such diversity. Seems to make the odds of the evolution theory even more fantastic. Maybe it would happen once (forming something within the body which would serve no useful purpose for thousands of generations, only to eventually be useful millions of years later), but for it to happen on a global scale, within various different ocean creatures seems impossible, don't you think?

4. Of course, all these different creatures would all have to have risen from the same beginning, thus one (eventual) cell being able to be the springboard of thousands of diverse creatures makes this topic's conclusions even more strong.

The evolutionary model makes predictions based upon what is found and can be experimented on. But I believe that there are way too many points of speculation, . . . .things that are taken as 'truth', . . . . to make a truly grounded and logical conclusion. I see it as "storying telling on a scientific level".

This is all just my own observations. Everyone is entitled to form their own opinions on such a topic as this. Thanks for reading.

 

[jwu]

I'm not at home right now so i can take only a quick shot:

2. At some point in their evolution, such a creature would actually have both gills and a rudimentary lung capable of receiving oxygen from the air. Logically, due to the time of evolutionary scales, this creature would have had this setup for thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.

These critters still exist today. Let me introduce you to the lungfish. That's just one among many, another case is the Tiktaalik transitional. Evolution successfully predicted where this fossil would be found.

If "survival of the fittest" is true, what would be the reason to loose the ability of breathing under water, because evolution theory states this creature, that began to live on land, eventually returned to the oceans as the mammals we find there today?

Evolution doesn't plan ahead, new niches are found all the time. They survive just fine there, don't they (ignoring the problems caused by humans in the past few decades)? So why should they not evolve that way? Evolution is opportunistic. Keep in mind, those which "returned to the seas", the ancestors of today's cetaceans, had little in common with those lungfish critters above, they occupied completely different ecological niches.

3. There are many different forms of land animals on the planet today. This is also true of the many forms of incest, arachnid, worms, etc. Because of this fact, . . . . it is logical to conclude that it would be impossible for only ONE form of ocean life to attain the physical characteristic of being able to breath on land, and that one specimine to be the "genesis" of every form of land creature we see today. Therefore, the mutation of 'the formation of a rudimentary lung' would have to have been accomplished in a variety of different ocean creatures in order to have such diversity. Seems to make the odds of the evolution theory even more fantastic. Maybe it would happen once (forming something within the body which would serve no useful purpose for thousands of generations, only to eventually be useful millions of years later), but for it to happen on a global scale, within various different ocean creatures seems impossible, don't you think?

Why?
Organs like the eye evolved more than a dozen times, independently. I see no reason to assume problems with lungs or similar organs doing the same, albeit i don't know the actual details of the theory of evolution on this one, if it happened once or multiple times. Actual lungs, that is. Insects don't have lungs, neither do worms and so on. They use a different way of getting oxygen.
Only vertebrates have lungs, and these are most likely all descendent from a single population that developed lungs.

 

[Barbarian]

Lungs appeared first in chordates which breathed primarily through gills. I believe that they were also vertebrates by that time, essentially what we would call "fish." Lungfish are among their descendants, So are we. In fact, molecular and genetic phylogenies show lungfish and humans to be more closely related than lungfish and other fishes.

The lungs were first just simple outpoutchings of the digestive tract, most likely an adapatation to make swallowing air (a desperation move for fish in low-oxygenated water) more efficitient.

 

[Orion]

I am familiar with the lung fish, actually. A fascinating creature.

Thanks for addressing my questions. Are you both (the two who answered my questions) Christians?

 

[jwu]

Yep, i'm a Christian theistic evolutionist, and unless i am grossly mistaken The Barbarian shares that point of view.

 

[Orion]

I don't know, . . . maybe this should be a completely new topic, but . . . . . . . . . . . . . so it shall. *yes, I just changed my mind*

 

[Barbarian]

Would I be less reliable about fish, if I wasn't a Christian?

 

[Orion]

Would I be less reliable about fish, if I wasn't a Christian?

Sure, . . . . . if that "fish" was a man (you know, "fisher of men").

Okay, a lame joke. But anyway, I just asked to know whether you were a Christian, or a non-Christian who was on this board.

 

[LittleNipper]

A transitional creature, would seem to be a creature which is moving from one kind of animal into becoming another sort. If the kind in question is still around after years and years, it would seem that rather then a "transitional creature," this animal has an important spot in GOD's created ecological system. In other words, the "transitional" always was and never branched off to be anything other. It's a nice way of saying that evolutionists are full of crap and want everyone else to accept their opinion as valid, if not actually scientifically observable......

 

[jwu]

If the kind in question is still around after years and years, it would seem that rather then a "transitional creature," this animal has an important spot in GOD's created ecological system. In other words, the "transitional" always was and never branched off to be anything other.

Why should it be a requirement for transitionals to go extinct after a short time?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why should it be a requirement for transitionals to go extinct after a short time?

The very term TRANSITION means to be passing from one condition, place, etc., to another.
If it is good enough to continue to survive within the environment, when survival of the fittest is the supposed motivation behind evolution, then either the newer and better would out surpass the older and less efficient or the older more established would destroy the latest mutant. I see no logic for one kind to change to another and allow the former to co-exist. What I see are two necessary kinds which GOD designed to make the environment run at its best. This is both logical and biblical. They have their part to play and they are doing to one degree or another what they were originally designed to do ---- given the fact of the FALLEN state of the Universe presently....

 

[Barbarian]

The very term TRANSITION means to be passing from one condition, place, etc., to another.

In the strict sense, it's very true, because the line that led to us is gone. Some of their near-relatives (coelacanth, lungfish) are still around, but not the species living back then. Those near-relatives are highly evolved from their ancestors.

If it is good enough to continue to survive within the environment, when survival of the fittest is the supposed motivation behind evolution, then either the newer and better would out surpass the older and less efficient or the older more established would destroy the latest mutant.

Or some would find a new niche and prosper there, while some continue to live in the old ways.

I see no logic for one kind to change to another and allow the former to co-exist.

See above. It's very common in biology.

What I see are two necessary kinds which GOD designed to make the environment run at its best.

God is an omnipotent creator, not some inferior designer. Limited creatures design; God creates. Please don't insult Him like that.

 

[LittleNipper]

God is an omnipotent creator, not some inferior designer. Limited creatures design; God creates. Please don't insult Him like that.

Remember you're the one who said it......
God is an omnipotent creator, not some inferior designer.

The fact of the matter is that evolution is all about inferior transitions to form one species from another over eons of time. GOD is a wonderful CREATOR GOD. GOD has give each kind its own limitless variety (no two ever alike), and a will to survive. GOD has made man in HIS OWN image but a little lower then sngels.
It is not I who has been insulting GOD.

 

[Barbarian]

Remember you're the one who said it......
God is an omnipotent creator, not some inferior designer.

Right. "Design" is what creatures do. Don't insult God by calling Him a designer.

The fact of the matter is that evolution is all about inferior transitions

In biology, there are no such thing as "inferior transitions. Imaginative terms are no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

to form one species from another over eons of time. GOD is a wonderful CREATOR GOD.

Of course. Evolution is an amazing way to create living things. God is much greater and wiser than you're willing to give Him credit for.

It is not I who has been insulting GOD.

Sorry, but you've been insulting Him. Do not demote him to a mere designer.

 

[Orion]

I don't believe that the term "designer" can be used as an "insulting word", when it is applied to God. By definition, a designer is "a person who devises or executes designs, esp. one who creates forms, structures, and patterns, as for works of art or machines. " . . . . .a "creator" is simply "a person or thing that creates." Neither of these are free from error, unless the designer or creator is perfect. . AND chooses to create or design a perfect . . . whatever. It may be in the purpose of a perfect designer to NOT create perfection, but give the created/designed item the ability to grow and advance, . . .learning from mistakes.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the strict idea of evolution, however the ability to adapt to surroundings would be one of the most wise characteristics a designer/creator could give his/her work. I would expect no less (much more) from a Wise God.

 

[Barbarian]

"Design" by definition, means "figuring things out." This means that any designer must be less than perfect and omnipotent.

Hence a demiurge, not the God of Christianity.

 

[Orion]

I see what you're saying. Thanks.

 

[JohnR]

Evolution doesn't plan ahead

God plans ahead, He knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,'

 

[JohnR]

Evolution doesn't plan ahead

God plans ahead, He knows the end from the beginning.

Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,'

 

[JohnR]

Re: Transitional species. Specifically ones with lungs &amp

According to evolution, there was a time where species began to emerge from the oceans to survive on land.

They are wrong because they do not read their Bible.

On the fifth day God said: "Let the waters bring forth" breathing creatures. On the sixth day we are told: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature"

Clearly there is a difference between what the waters brings forth and what the earth brings forth.

Also, there was a creation that took place on the 8 th day in the
Garden of Eden.

Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.