Can anybody debunk this fundie argument?

Some fundie asshole replied me on a forum with this argument, which I'm not sure how to reply.

"supposedly, between 415 and 380 million years ago, fish began to live on land?!?!?!?!?!? That means that every land animal evolved from a fish! Scientists theorize that pools of water contain fish dried up and that fish had to develope the ability to breath air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I told you that I was fishing and that i caught a fish and dropped it on the ground and it didn't suffocate, but rather it hopped and bounced its way even further onto land and lived happily ever after; Would you believe me?!!"

or amphibians? i dont think i need to post pictures of them...

Look at my posting below!

thinking. There was an intermediate process where fish type creatures were able to be in the water and breath while also being able to do so on dry land. Several creatures today have the same ability and can exist in both environments.

that's pretty much exactly what happened. Point to a more recent example of evolution and adaptation. Ask him to look up the Peppered Moths. He'll likely find a reason to ignore this evolutionary change, so it's probably a waste of time anyway.

In a nutshell, the first "breathing" fishes weren't dumped onto land and left to fend for themselves. They evolved very slowly over millions of year.

I've never heard of a theory of pools drying up, forcing fish onto land. Rather that fish acquired the ability to breath, allowing them to take advantage of the land. But again, this happened over millions of years, not overnight.

ugly little blighters

These critters didn't evolve lungs without a reason.

I'm a layperson who has not had hard science since high school. (Don't ask me how long ago that was.) This is my layman's understanding: There are mutations and some mutations are better adapted to an environment than the original species. When that happens, they take over the niche or go to a new niche. So while an individual fish is not going to grow lungs, individual fish mutations may indeed be capable of iving on both land and water. This lead to amphibians. Further mutations lead to land only organisms.

People were not speaking Latin one day then French (one branch of latin) the next. Tha Language eveolved over time but one can see the roots in Latin.

...all languages other were the result of trying to build a tower to heaven.

They can walk on land, and travel from pond to pond.

I often wonder if these nitwits refuse to believe in evolution because evolution has passed them by.

...which was released into the Florida waterways and was supposed to decimate the native fishery, because it breeds like a rabbit and could eat all of the fish in one body of water then walk to the next.

Well...not quite. It seems that Floridian fish-eating birds really enjoy not having to go into the water for their meals, and they have managed to keep the walking catfish population regulated.

Look at the Mud Skipper. It is a fish. While it cannot survive forever out of the water, it can move from one muddy pool to the next. Its ability to gain some respiration from the air makes this possible. Its ancestors could not move from pool to pool, but had a mutation that allowed them to colonize increasingly more oxygen-poor water where there was very little competition. Over millions of years, successive mutations refine this ability and were selected for by the increased ability of those that had them to survive in the oxygen-starved water niche. Finally you get to the ability to respire air long enough to flop to nearby pools when the one you are in dries out... This ability is a survival advantage and is therefore selected... When other mutations like a slimey skin that does not dry quickly occur that help this feat, they too are selected. And by-and-by, over millions of generations, you have the Mud Skipper!

Refine this farther, and you might have something like an Amphibian.

These fundies are simply too stupid to understand the meaning of natural selection or the depth of time required for changes like this to occur.

:yourock:

It wastes your time and irritates the pig. "

Someone that divorced from logic will not accept any argument, no matter how well framed. It's best to leave them alone, they do not want to debate with you, they are only looking for an excuse to verbally abuse you.

Recently rediscovered, these walking fish were thought to be extinct.

http://www.goosen.org/sa/discoa2.html

--IMM

Don't feed the bores.

I have been posting in a science forum for over 10 years with some of the most scholarly folks in the field including the senior science editor of TIME magazine. In fact this argument is percolating there now with a fundie like you describe. After a month of presenting evidence in the most coherent laymen terms, the fundie is still in total denial, but not because he's stupid or unable to grasp the facts, it's because he's drunk the kool-aid. Move-on, the alternative is an excercise in futility.

...that some dude with a white beard pointed his magic wand and created a whole planet of trees, animals, oceans and whatnot overnight, would you believe me?!!!!!!!!!! (and don't forget the exclamation points - apparently those carry a lot of weight in this discussion)

great response

Best possible response.

Logic, reason, and the scientific method cannot work with anyone who'd try the original asinine argument. These are the same people that seem to be stuck on the idea that humans couldn't possibly have evolved from apes, because ... THERE ARE STILL APES!!!!!!! (yup, the exclamation points and capitals are important). The idea of "common ancestor" doesn't seem to be comprehensible to them, yet we HAVE evidence of common ancestors for many species existing today, such as Miacis, from whom canids, felids, ursids, mustelids, and many other creatures evolved. You can show them the tree that's branched off from Miacis, and they still don't get it. They think you're trying to say cats evolved from dogs.

:eyes:

There are fish, I believe they are called "snake-heads" that actually do walk from pond to pond. Also, there is a class of animal called "amphibians" that thrive equally well in or out of water.

He is merely using an equal sign where it does not belong. The fish he would catch is simply not the type that would do well in that situation. When Jesus was on the cross, the Romans taunted him with remarks like "save yourself king of the Jews".

This is not unlike throwing a fish on the ground and saying "save yourself little fishy" "Grow legs and walk away"

The "walking catfish" is in fact a fish that can live out of water for up to six hours. They have been known to move to pools of water and lay their eggs so that other fish don't eat them. Then the babys walk back.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfish.html

Tell him to try going fishing with a crab net and see what happens whe he sets his catch on the ground (friggin' moron)

Tadpols are also finned and tailed like ancient fish. If he actually wants to see evolution in process happen before his eyes tell him to take a tadpol and watch it develope into a frog over a three week period. He will see it actually sprout arms and legs and then shed its tail and even grow a different skin. (this guy must be really stupid)

Tell him Sea Snakes are some of the first examples of reptiles that live on both water and land along with allagators, crocodiles, and his momma.

Good luck, but you're not going to make this guy change his mind.

John Hancock Tower.

When he replies - 25 or 40 miles.


Tell him that you can see as far away as the sun on a clear day. And that at night you can see even further: you can see stars from a gazillion miles away. .

Tell him that 'how one frames things' really does matter. That if you head towards each other - rather than trying to trip each other up - you can get and see alot further in the much needed debate. And tell him than if he ever wants to have an open and honest discussion where you actually try and teach each other a thing or two rather than blowing smoke.. to 'call you!'

And then tell him that when they opened up the genetic code of humans they found a few fully formed viruses just sitting there in our DNA. Now - would god put a virus in every human being? Or isn't that just left over from our 'pond' days.

Point him to this http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html Bonus: It's on his level.

Actually, this is better: http://www.atheists.org/evolution/creationscience.html

excerpt:
According to the fossil record, vertebrates went without jaws for many millions of years. Finally, at the beginning of the Devonian Period (395-345 million years ago), the first fish with jaws entered their remains into the record in the rocks. At the very end of the Devonian or the beginning of the Carboniferous Period (345-280 million years ago), the first primitive amphibians arose. These fish-like animals differed from their air-breathing fish ancestors mostly in their elaboration of the bony structure of the paired appendages - converting fins into hands and feet - and in reinforcement of the structures attaching the paired appendages to the spinal column. The first reptiles did not appear until the last half of the Carboniferous Period.

To give the lie to creationist claims that there are no connecting-link fossils to join the vertebrate classes, the Permian Period (280-225 million years ago) saw the appearance of an entire order of animals, the mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida), which can be seen to change with time from typical, primitive reptiles, into primitive mammals. It was not until late in the Triassic Period (225-190 million years ago) that the therapsid-mammal transmutation was complete. Contrary to the first chapter of Genesis, which claims that the first mammals appeared on the earth a mere twenty-four hours after the first fish, the first mammals did not appear on earth until more than 300 million years of fish evolution had transpired!

Every animal I can think of needs water in some form of another to survive. All animals need water in order to live.

Take humans for example we can go along time without food but not water.

evolution does not happen instantaneously. The fundy you were "debating" must have had a limited education to have used such a shallow example.

...tossing a cat into a vat of acid and proclaiming: "See? The cat didn't evolve to breath acid and swim! That proves evolution is false!"

Man has manipulated the characteristics of dogs for centuries. It doesn't even take many generations. As soon as a trait enhances survival of a population, that trait will expand to fill the population within just a few generations.

i was talking to my partner when we were watching the Westminster dog show, and i joked saying, dogs are all man made...its kinda true in a way

On an island,but we didn't evolve from turtles I believe, and carbonization isn't ultimate proof.

is in it. He stands on a beech with a cow and talks about how a common ancestor of cows & humans came up on land and learned how to walk/breath etc.

ROTFLMAO

Then Robin innocently tries to lead the cow into the water as he keeps speaking. The cow makes huge eyes and starts mooing. And Robin keeps calling her ... to demonstrate his point.

Oh - it was so funny.

I cannot remember the name of the documentary.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

with small changes from one generation to the next.

furthermore he seems to think that adding lots of exclamation-marks somehow discredits the claims.

he was in a liquid filled environment and then dropped out and immediately started breathing.

Also, tell him to read The blind Watchmaker and more esepcially The Bead of the Finch and tell him you refuse to talk to him about it until he has read them. You'll never hear from him again. Thems science books.

(Best answer is the man with the beard and the magic wand mentioned earlier.)

to fit the habitats in which they live. If evolution is false, why have certain animals developed traits to maximize the environmental benefits in which they thrive? Why isn't the world still populated by trilobytes? Why haven't humans existed for hundreds of millions of years? Also, human and other vertebrate embryos go through similar stages of development in the womb...including stages where they possess tails and gill-like slits. After all, humans breathe amniotic fluid before they are born. Besides, remember that this argument is coming from a person who believes a virgin gave birth to Christ, the universe was created in 7 days, and billions of animals peacefully rode in a 200 yard boat for 40 days and nights. Talk about unbelievable!

You should Read Twain's Letters From The Earth in which Twain tries to describe a first person view of the Noah story. It's a hoot to read of the massive heards of dinosaurs running to board the Ark at the last minute as Noah et.al. quickly close the doors.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I want to shake people when they start talking about walking fish (or putting them upside down on their cars!) That conception comes from one of the many misnomers regarding evolution. Another one being that humans "evolved from monkeys." In reality, humans and the other great apes evolved from a *common ancestor!!*

That being said, if fish are around now, then they weren't around then, so the silly picture that he paints of himself fishing, is a very distorted representation of what may have happened millions of years ago.

..in Florida.

http://www.tommcmahon.net/2005/01/the_walking_cat.html


Better yet, point out to him that several of the higher order of mammals have returned to the sea.

Whales and dolphins used to live on dry land, and about 50 million years ago, decided to return to the sea. They retain vestiges of their land legs, and of course are still air breathing.

http://www.reefed.edu.au/explorer/animals/marine_vertebrates/marine_mammals/dolphins.html

If your friend would like a closer look at the evolution of mammals returning to the sea, have a look at seals and walrus. Their flippers used to be distinct individuated paws, and are currently evolving into flippers. They are still partially dependent on land (not as highly evolved as the whales and dolphins), but in 30-50 million years will have successfully returned to the Oceans.

Will Humans eventually return to the Sea?
We can only hope!

That seems a plausible thing. After all, if the current trend of global warming continues, the waters will flood the earth and force us to adapt. After millions of years, we might look like mermaids :silly:

But I don't wanna go back to the sea. I wanna go airborne! :)

So the answer is Yes, I would believe you.
Here's a good book on this topic: Richard Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale.