re: Evolution: Missing link found. Fish => Tetrapod

quote:

---

However, monkeys evolving into humans or fish suddenly sprouting legs and lungs to breath out of water seem way more far fetched and implausible.

---

Why couldn't a mutation with stronger fins that allowed it go on land not live on? It seems like it could easily escape from predators that way, and then over time air sacs popped up which turn into lungs?

quote:

---

Why did the alleles and genes of a particular fish decide it needed the body as a hole to have legs and be able to breath out of water? How did it even know what it needed? Can alleles and genes have intelligent thought to even understand what it needs and why it needs it?

---

It knows it needs to survive and run from predators. Land back then would have been a great plan if they could just bask out there for 15 minutes when a predator has just chased after them, and then they could return to the water safely. Animals are smart enough to get a basic defense down from predators, or they're pretty swiftly eliminated.

quote:

---

I could probably be safer if I didn't have to drive everywhere, why don't my gene's/alleles mutate to give me the ability to have wings and fly?

---

Why do you need to fly? Sure it would be cool, but it wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous to a human at all. Do you have any idea how much being able to fly would contradict some of our basic and human functions, like for instance, the hand?

quote:

---

As far as the monkeys evolving into humans, why do we not see a middle ground today?

---

What is the so-called "middle ground"? We're all middle ground animals. We've put birds on different islands where their previous food source isn't there, but we've seen that over the matter of a few decades, their beaks evolve to where they can change the way they eat food and their general diet.

quote:

---

We can see a baby, watch it grow into a child, then into a young adult, then into a full grown adult. At any given time, I can see any stage of this growth process on our planet for most any species. Why are there ONLY 100% monkeys/chimps and ONLY 100% humans? Where's the in between? If evolution was/is occurring, shouldn't there be middle stages evident today?

---

I would try to explain it to you further, but these concepts would go too far over your head.

quote:

---

Even if I accepted that all of that is possible (F*ck it - I'll concede that it is possible), then you have to admit that all that information had to be present at the very beginning - at least in some accessible form - and that information must have come from either some "pre-Earth" donor lifeform or some intelligent creator/initiator.

---

This is wrong in that it doesn't account for mutation.

We are all mutants.

You can track the spread of humanity across the globe by looking at the mutations that occur on the genes. Some people have them and some don't. You can tell the oldest mutations are those that most people have. But as people seperated, they developed mutations apart from the others. Therefore there are mutations (ie genetic information) in some humans DNA while not in others. It doesn't ALL have to be there at the beginning.

The energy driving all of these mutaions ultimatly comes from the sun. Yes, entropy is dissipating energy from the sun, but as it dissipates, we represent a transformative stage of energy and matter. Like fireworks spinning off after an intial explosion - inevitably destined to cool and fizzle out.

quote:

---

Based on posts here as late as yesterday, and exemplified by the asinine quote I provided, your generic "we" didn't seem to have anything approaching that degree of awareness. Nothing of the sort.

---

quote:

---

Posted by WildTchoupitoulas quote: How the hell do fish "evolve" and "mutate" to where they can go from only breathing underwater to being able to breathe oxygen on land? Ask this guy: Periophthalmodon schlosseri, the Giant mudskipper, is a species of mudskipper native to the tropical shores of the eastern Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean where it occurs in marine, brackish and fresh waters. It is most frequently found along muddy shores in estuaries as well as in the tidal zones of rivers. It lives in a burrow in the mud and emerges from the burrow at low tide on sunny days. It can move quickly across a muddy surface and is capable of breathing both in and out of water. The giant mudskipper can grow to a length of 27 centimetres (11 in) TL. This species is of minor importance to local commercial fisheries.[1] Basically if there is a mutation that gives an organism an environmental advantage, his offspring will out compete those that do not have the advantage. Don't over-complicate Natural Selection, it's very straight forward.

---

If the theory of evolution were true, shouldn't that bastard already evolved into us by now?

quote:

---

I hate the misnomer of "missing link"

---

Yep, and for the hardcore creationists, instead of answering a question, all it does is add yet another so-called "missing link" for them.

quote:

---

in what way could a transition from a leg to a wing be advantageous?

---

See my post toward the bottom of page 4

thanks for the news NC

Guys, I honestly believe that if we co-existed with one or more of the other species of humans who are now extinct we wouldn't be having a debate over the validity of evolution.

Simply put, there is no evidence of creation as literally described in the Bible. There is zero evidence that man was created separate from the animal kingdom.

Of course I believe God placed life on Earth in motion and directed its evolution. But it doesn't matter if its nature or God which directs the path of life, it's still evolution over vasts amounts of time.

Christian's need to stop viewing science as a challenge to faith. You're not going to go to Hell because you question a literal interpretation of Genesis.

There is a bigger picture, and it does include God. But evolution happened and is happening. It's how we got here. Accept it. Cherish it, because it WAS God's plan.

quote: What advantage is gained from a foot becoming a proto-wing?

quote: Yeah, that's how it worked.

quote: Actually, maybe so. Wings have developed from feet.

My question was never did a foot become a proto-wing, but if one was to do so, what was so advantageous of the transition that it allowed that creature to be more succesful than its predecessors? Evolution is a process of small changes over numerous generations culminating in a substantial difference, or at least macro-evolution is this way, right?

Don't look at the finished product and tell me how great it is, hind sight after all is 20/20.

I was not being sarcastic. My question was not garbage. I think you meant to type attributation?
Again, it has been posted all through these threads, macro-evolution is small changes(transitions) over numerous generations resulting in a sbstantial difference, if not a new species.

What would make the transition from a foot to a wing(not the finished wing product) so advantageous that the end reult(wing) was accomplished?