You Are More than a Primitive Fish
Consider this headline: “We’re more like primitive fishes than once believed.” Why aren’t people insulted?
It passes by like the usual Darwinian fluff, perhaps similar to the daily flogging conservatives get in the secular media and are expected to endure without complaint because it’s easier that way. But there’s a lot to dislike in this headline from the University of Copenhagen: “We’re more like primitive fishes than once believed.” Why do people put up with this? Stand back and look at this statement like a rational citizen. Consider how a group of bold non-Darwinian thinkers might respond to it:
- Believed by whom? I didn’t believe that. Don’t use hypnosis on me.
- Maybe there are a few similarities, but there are 10 million differences you forgot to mention.
- Oh stop it. Not everyone is a doctrinaire Darwinian like you creatures in academia. Speak for yourselves.
- Why, this is profound. Primitive fish deserve the right to vote. Support lungfish suffrage!
- Get a life, OK? You guys really need to get out more. Go outside and shake fins with some people.
- I’ve seen a few people who resembled primitive fish, too. I had this evolutionary biology prof in college with tight lips and big eyes that never blinked. He looked like he was staring at us out of an aquarium.
- Can I try one? “Fish are less like primitive humans than schizophrenics once believed.”
- Fascinating. Could you suggest some recent works by lungfish authors, so I could catch up on their points of view?
The group then starts singing, “Let’s all bloop like the fishies bloop,” walking around with fish-lips, waving their elbows like fins, as the others laugh hysterically.
It’s doubtful the next press release from Copenhagen would be so careless, given the red faces (from anger or shame) of academics getting that kind of treatment from readers.
This is not to overlook some comparisons that can be legitimately made. Primitive fish are made of cells, and so are humans. Primitive fish have DNA, as do humans. Some humans can swim, like fish. This kind of association can be made with almost any distant items, like “Liberals are more like kangaroos than Aussies thought.” One must ask, what is the purpose of the headline associating humans with primitive fish, if not to inculcate a Darwinian philosophy? Look at this biased chart they published in the article, trying to make humans just a hop, skip and jump away from lungfish (as well as lizards, birds and salamanders):
The “findings” of the University (more like revised doctrines) should embarrass them. Now they have to conclude that air-breathing lungs popped into existence earlier than they believed: “the genetic basis of air-breathing and limb movement was already established in our fish ancestor 50 million years earlier,” they say Darwinly. But how did such a remarkable system get “established” so early? Was it a miracle? Look at the miracle words in their explanation:
Our common fish ancestor that lived 50 million years before the tetrapod first came ashore already carried the genetic codes for limb-like forms and air breathing needed for landing. These genetic codes are still present in humans and a group of primitive fishes. This has been demonstrated by recent genomic research conducted by University of Copenhagen and their partners. The new research reports that the evolution of these ancestral genetic codes might have contributed to the vertebrate water-to-land transition, which changes the traditional view of the sequence and timeline of this big evolutionary jump.
It “might have” they say, which means equally that it might not have. Darwin warned that natural selection could never take a big and sudden leap but must work through short, gradual steps. So what is this “big evolutionary jump” they want to foist upon unsuspecting readers who never saw visions of “our common fish ancestor” in a fishbowl? Where did the genes come from that magically appeared in some species 50 million years earlier than these Darwin promoters used to believe?
More absurdly, why were genes for air-breathing lungs and limbs already present 50 million years before any animal decided to use them for land? Natural selection should have eliminated them. The only evidence they offer is genes from a fish called a bichir, which is capable of using its front fins for locomotion on the ocean floor. Yet all more “advanced” teleost fish supposedly lost these genes! Rather than seeing this as a problem for the Darwin tree-picture, they keep the genes they like and toss the genes they don’t like in order to maintain their latest vision of a fish-to-man transition.
Update 14 Feb 2021: Elizabeth Pennisi at Science Magazine (12 Feb) bought into the pre-adaptation tale, saying that these genes must have been present in some ancestral fish before they were ever used for land life. In “Genes for life on land evolved earlier in fish,” she actually says that a 700-year-old Dutch fantasy drawing of a fish with arms climbing onto land was “remarkably prescient.”
The first fish to set fin on land must have already had at least some of the physical traits and genetic modifications needed to do so, but researchers hadn’t worked out how and when they became equipped for the change. “The big question of how such a large morphological shift actually occurred remains very much in play,” says Peter Currie, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Monash University.
Three genes she cites, one for a lung surfactant, one for flexibility in a fin, and one for allowing a fish to leave water temporarily, do not solve the problem.
Rather than building new structures and genetic pathways just when vertebrates moved onto land, evolution apparently was thrifty, using existing genes to adapt to the opportunities offered by terrestrial habitats. “[The studies] show the extent to which the fish-tetrapod transition was achieved by modifying existing molecular systems, rather than creating new ones,” says Per Ahlberg, a paleontologist at Uppsala University.
This “exaptation” idea is nonsense according to Darwinism. There is no foresight in evolutionary theory. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. Nobody is trying to be thrifty. Either a gene is of immediate use, or it is discarded. That is true even if one accepts the simplistic notion of natural selection as a directional process. Did you see the passive voice verb trick? The transition “was achieved by modifying existing molecular systems,” Ahlberg claims. Who modified it? Nobody. Who achieved it? Nobody. Ahlberg needs to specify the subject of the verb. This makes no sense according to blind Darwinian processes, unless one wishes to visualize life on some quest to rise higher and higher – a brand of vitalism that should be anathema to Darwinian materialists.
Keep in mind that the Darwin Years and the connecting lines in the chart are all based on the Darwinian worldview; they do not represent reality. Evolutionists are simply moving the deck chairs around on their Titanic puzzle while their ship is sinking.
They get away with it because they are totalitarian clowns. They can say whatever they want and you have to take it.
On second thought, no, you don’t have to take it.