Desperately Seeking Evolutionary Fish Legs

Many people are familiar with the fish outline emblem that many Christians have on their autos, shirts, sites, and so forth. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have their versions as well, used to mock Christians. The most common of these is the fish with legs (some have "Darwin" stylistically imposed in them). This implies, "I don't believe in God the Creator, I believe in science!" They promote their views religiously.

There are some problems with the "Darwin fish" idea. Most notably, it began before there was anything to present as evidence for the mythology that life began in the sea, a fish flopped onto land, developed legs, and began evolving into the many critters we have today, as well as humans. They believe in the walking fish thing despite lack of evidence. That's not science, Skippy, that's blind faith.

Here we go again. I have to take us on a side trail for a few moments, so just ride along for a spell. There is often a problem with definitions. Regular readers know that I emphasize the fallacy of equivocation, the bait 'n' switch trick that atheists and evolutionists pull. If you have your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll see that when variations in organisms are observed, they are falsely called "evolution" (which is used to imply that Darwin was right). So, we have to nail down which definition of evolution is being employed.

Reminds me of the joke about the Buddhist that bought a newspaper. He asked the vendor, "Where's my change?", and the vendor reminded him that change comes from within. Ambiguity on the definition of change, you see.

Similarly, we are told that fish can walk. Tiktaalik was used as an example as a transitional form, rejected, but a few die-hards tried to bring it back. Interestingly, some owlhoots didn't get the memo, and try to tell creationists that it is still valid. Not hardly! But remember, definitions matter. What do they mean by walk? It is an extremely complicated and profoundly engineered process, even in humans. Flopping from one pond to another can hardly be considered "walking", old son. Also, legs themselves are quite detailed, and bumps or protrusions are not legs except in the imaginations of fundamentalist evolutionists.

Okay, we're back to the main trail. Darwin lived in the land of wishful thinking, because he knew that evidence was lacking or even in opposition to his speculations. Even today, the faithful grasp at straws and play weasel word games, but Darwin still fails big time. Again, that stuff is blind faith, not science. The evidence supports special creation, not the false god of evolutionism.

The Darwin Fish scientific method: Draw a fish. Draw legs on it to mock Christians who use it as a symbol. Then furiously hunt for evidence that a fish with feet existed.

Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales. The belief came prior to any evidence for fish with feet, because Darwin complained about the lack of transitional forms in his Origin of Species. He knew that most species appear abruptly in the rocks, and that his needed transitional forms were not found: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” he said (Origin 6th ed., p. 280). He did not, therefore, even speculate about how fish evolved into land creatures, although he hoped that transitional fossils would turn up some day.

To read the rest, click on "The Evolution of the Darwin Fish". Also, you may want to see "The False Evolutionary Icon of Walking Fish".

Source for the main part of the image at the top was found at Openclipart, then modified.