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.
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.
