The evolution of tetrapods (4-footed animals) has remained a mystery.
It is absolutely remarkable that evolutionists can even begin to think that fishes evolved into four-footed amphibians, but that is exactly what they think. To be fair, they do admit that the gaps are wide, but they have suddenly become wider.
First, here are a couple of quotes to show that they do admit that the gaps are wide:
“The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established,[yeah, Like the coelacanth?] but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.”
(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))
"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1)."
(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)
It is truly astonishing how presumably competent biologists can fool themselves.
There are so many simply gigantic problems involved in the supposed transition from fish to amphibian or reptile that are simply swept under the carpet, it leads one to wonder where these people got their qualifications.
The veriest child knows that any fish, like its goldfish,left out of water, will shortly die.
Its gills are designed to function in water, and simply cannot do so in the air. Therefore, whichever fish the evolutionist cares to choose as the fancied ancestor of amphibian or reptile had to overcome this basic problem first.
To put it simply, it is just plain stupid to think that could happen.
Every day thousands of fish caught by fishermen die in the air. That's thousands of experiments being carried out to show that no fish can survive out of water. NOT ONE SUCH FISH HAS SURVIVED FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME. Ask any fisherman!
Here's an idiotic statement (typical of this kind of foolish thinking):
"Most scientists believe the amphibians evolved (developed gradually) from the lobe-finned fish. Lobe-finned fish had lungs and enlarged fins supported by bones and muscles. They could use their fins as legs to come out of the water for brief periods. These fins probably developed into amphibian legs.
Ever heard such nonsense?
The fish crept out on land for brief periods - and asphyxiated. The faster they asphyxiated, the faster they evolved! It's hard to credit the stupidity of that idea, but because it emerged from some university, it is supposed to be an intelligent concept. The most stupid fisherman could tell those professors that they're wrong, mad, or on mushrooms.
I don't know which. You must choose, dear reader.
But that's not the only problem!
Look at these diagrams of the skeleton of a fish and a tetrapod:
Let's make the first point here.
Look at the 'pectoral fin' and the 'pelvic fin'.
Do you see that neither of them IS CONNECTED TO THE BACKBONE IN ANY WAY, either directly or indirectly?
OK. That's a typical bony fish.
Now here's the skeleton of a frog, a typical amphibian.
See any differences? Yes, of course.
There are bones in the frog's forelimbs, AND THEY ARE CONNECTED TO THE scapula (shoulder blade) WHICH IS A PART OF THE AXIAL SKELETON as it's called.
There is NO connection between the fins of a fish and the axial skeleton.
QUESTION: How the connection ever made?
ANSWER: It wasn't.
Now look at the star performers in the Tetrapod Evolution Circus Parade.
Do you see any connection between these things and the fins of fish? Look back at the fins of the bony fish above, and decide for yourself.
Now suppose, and we'll use Tiktaalik as an example that this fish ever came out on to land. I said 'fish' because that's what the discoverers called it. Here's wiki on the subject:
Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish
Give the artists half a chance, and they'd have Tiktaalik flying! Here's a picture of one - just before it dashed back into the water before it dried out! Or is it dead because it dried out?
What reason does it have for being there anyway? After all, its food is in the water and has been for millions of years. Or has it just decided to take a walk to stretch its non-existent legs?
Just listen to Shubin (guess what, he was one of the discoverers of Tikaalik, and is busy hyping it up, with no evidence at all beside his overheated imagination) "It probably had lungs as well as gills, and it had overlapping ribs that could be used to support the body against gravity, Shubin said.
Did you get that? This creature (which, Clack, one of the other discoverers said was more like a fish than anything else) PROBABLY HAD LUNGS AS WELL AS GILLS!
Now what was it doing with both - and most important of all WHY did it have them, and HOW DID IT GET THEM?
There's another serious point which is never mentioned. In most fishes, the pelvic fins are a lot SMALLER than the pectoral fins. In ALL TETRAPODS, the hind limbs are the biggest, usually by a long way. Think of a kangaroo, the most extreme example. How did that arrangement come about?
But let's now apply the instinct test.
Here's a fish, breathing with gills. It has the instincts to do so.
Here's a creature breathing with lungs AND gills. Allegedly.
Quite apart from the stupidity of a fish evolving the physical structures of lungs - and they are TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO GILLS - which would have filled up with water, drowning the poor brute, where did it get the instincts from TO USE the lungs, if its ancestors had been doing quite well, thank you, with gills before that?
To use our famous little diagram again:
Fish F (using gills) ------ X ------> Tiktaalik (using gills AND LUNGS)
What happened at X?
Tiktaalik was considered to be one of the ancestors of tetrapods, with much blowing of trumpets and evolutionist chortling.
Alas, alas! Woe is them, they are undone!
This very month (Jan 2010) an article was published in Nature which caused one of the editors (Henry Gee) to write this:
The best discoveries are those that overturn current thinking, revealing that what we thought, only yesterday, to have been a coherent and complete picture, is in fact a void that no discoveries can yet fill. Such is the report in tomorrow’s Nature (Niedźwiedzki et al., 463, 43-48, 7 January 2010) of footprints left by tetrapods (four legged land vertebrates) eighteen million years older than the earliest known tetrapod fossils, and ten million years older than the fossils of the creatures thought to be the closest relatives of tetrapods. A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight.
In other words, it's "Back to the drawing board, fellow evolutionist guessers! It was all wrong, dammit!"
You really must read the article. It's here: http://network.nature.com/people/henrygee/blog/2010/01/05/first-footing
But this tetrapod thing was a major plank in the support for evolution, with new 'transitional fossils' being found at a rate of knots every day!
So what's going to happen next month? Where are you going to run, dear evolutionists, if another major plank is blasted next month?
And they will be. Just you wait and see.
NEW! HOT OFF THE PRESS!!
“HOW DOES INSTINCT EVOLVE”
Evolution's Soft Underbelly
The Argument Darwin Dreaded…
The Argument No-One Has Developed Before…
The Argument to Which There Is
NO ANSWER FROM THE EVOLUTIONISTS!
Nearly 50,000 viewers of my articles can’t all be wrong. Check Google for this subject and see!
Go here for your copy. £4.95