Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fish evolved to live on land 30 times, maybe?

arroba Email

Cancel your Darwin. From Science:

The first fish that stepped onto land more than 350 million years ago wasn’t a fluke. Our ocean friends may have evolved the ability to come out of the water at least 30 times over the ages, according to a new study of the diversity of amphibious fish alive today. The work highlights the factors that foster extreme lifestyle changes—and may hint at how the very first fish took to land.

“It’s fascinating that … these transitions may not be as difficult as presumed,” says Sandy Kawano, a comparative biomechanist at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis in Knoxville, Tennessee, who wasn’t involved with the study.Paper. (paywall) More.

The transitions are very difficult indeed and do not happen without design. Does anyone ever get sick of the [horseshot]?

See also: The leaping blenny, a landwalking fish.


Michael Denton on the patterns in nature

Follow UD News at Twitter!

rvb8: RB, incredulity is not an argument But gullibility apparently is? es58
Just as reptiles, mammals, and birds all seperately evolved methods to conquer new environments, the air, back to ocean for example, it is very plausible that the move out of early ocean happened several times, in several areas. Indeed, this is hardly news as it fits quite easily with 'exploitation of new habitat', theme in evolution. RB, incredulity is not an argument. rvb8
AHA. They need more then one fish! Indeed if its that easy for a fish to come out of the water and go from there then why not 30 or 3000 times??? Whats the ceiling on improbability!? I think its all guessing and unrelated to scientific investigation. Could a fish of come out, evolved a while, go back in, evole there, come out again with more evolving, 30 times??? Why not? Show why small steps couldn't do that!? Robert Byers
I'm guessing a design template - not oops. I'm guessing guided evolution - not unguided evolution. Oops 30 times? How probable is that? Please get serious, Sean. Please. ppolish
Yes, and the existence of many different cars obviously shows that it is easy to get cars without design. Oh wait ... that doesn't actually make any sense. Sean, I'm sorry, but your comment is ridiculous. If something happens a lot without intervention then that's usually good evidence that it's probable to happen without intervention. The mere fact that something has happened a lot, however, is not good evidence at all that it has happened in any particular way. You can't simply assume that something has happened naturalistically, observe that it has happened a lot, then take that observation as evidence that it is easy to accomplish naturalistically. In order to conclude that it is easy to accomplish naturalistically, you need actual evidence of that, and it is not forthcoming. If something gives evidence of requiring design, and that something has occurred many times, it suggests that the design has been intelligently implemented many times. It does not suggest that design isn't really required after all. Seriously, what is up with the atheist / evolutionist arguments around here? The logic seems to be getting even worse lately. HeKS
... or maybe these transitions are not so difficult, and no design is required. If something happens a lot, that's usually evidence that it's probable, not improbable. sean s. sean samis

Leave a Reply