Im pretty sure you cant prove anything just by pointing at a lungfish,especially making the claim we descended from something like them is wrong according to david attenborough who writes in the origin of species parttwo p55 that both the lungfish and coelcacanth are disqualified due to the bones of their skulls being totally different to the first fossil amphibians.You can deduce that one cannot be derived from another.
I'm not saying we're descended from them. I'm saying that they're an example of how life could have evolved (in the case of the lungfish, they show that lungs could have evolved in aquatic organisms as an adaptation of a buoyancy device: oxygen in their proto-lung could diffuse into the blood, thus providing a way to get oxygen in the absence of water).
Likewise, the 'elbowed' fish shows how limbs that were primarily used for swimming could be adapted to move on land.
Obviously we're not descended from modern fish; our ancestors lived in the past. We are descended from tetrapods, which share a common ancestor with lungfish and coelacanths.
Umm once again ill go to an evolutionary book to support my case.The new evolutionary timetable pp4 page 96 states that eohippus shows little modification and fails to document the transition of the horse.
Quote-mining is an ugly practice, praisejahupeople. The
actual text is as follows (your extract is in bold):
Page 4:
"The fossil record of horses also testifies to an episodic tempo for evolution, and this is particularly notable because for decades the record of ancient horses was heralded as the classic illustration of gradual transformation. Although this fossil record, like all others, is incomplete, so that it
fails to document the full history of the horse family, one of its striking revelations is great evolutionary stability for tiny dawn horses, which, as the earliest representatives of the horse family, browsed on leaves about forty million years ago. For at least three or four million years, two species of these dawn horses roamed through woodlands of western North America. In other words, populations of these small animals replicated themselves through a million generations or so without undergoing appreciable change in form."
Pages 95-96:
"It is ironic that among the sluggishly changing species of the Bighorn Basin were members of the "dawn horse" genus
Hyracotherium (formerly called Eohippus), the animal generally believed to be the distant ancestor of the modem horse.
The fossil species of Hyracotherium show little evidence of evolutionary modification. One species lasted for at least three million years, and another for perhaps five million! For many years, while gradualistic thinking dominated evolutionary science,
it was widely assumed that Hyracotherium had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.
The new evidence for the stability of early Cenozoic species forces us to focus upon change by speciation involving small populations. Quantum speciation becomes our logical solution to the problem of the great mammalian radiation --a problem epitomized by the origin of bats and whales from small terrestrial mammals during twelve million years or less."
Oh, look at that! When you put the quotes back in context, your claims fall flat. You should think about researching your sources before you parrot the words of fraudster Kent Hovind.
Theres a massive variety in the horse family however its a leap of imagination to try and connect to anything not a horse.
Looking at the natural world,whos view has more support from what we can obseve.....mine or yours? be honest.
I find it ironic that you're asking
me to be honest, when you yourself quote mined.
Sometime mutations happen when the cells transport processes are damaged and inadvertantly stop the antibiotics from entering.Damaged cells are not beneficial mutations.
Perhaps, but damage is not the only way to acquire antibacterial resistance. Besides, if the 'damage' is genetic, and if it only affects the reaction to antibiotics, then it really is a beneficial mutation (and it isn't damage).
Sometimes cells already have resistance.
You keep saying this, but you don't explain where they got their resistance from. If it's hereditary, and if no new 'information' is created, then
all bacteria should have the resistance. Since they don't, you seem to have cornered yourself.
Im wondering why Dawkins didnt say any of this when asked about the increase of information in the genome.
What does Dawkins have to do with this?
You have a habit of typing information thats not supported by even evolutionary scientists.Its pretty obvious that man made antibiotics have a natural origin hence some acterias seemingly premade resistance.
There's a reason scientists don't base their conclusions on what seems "pretty obvious": it's almost always wrong.
First, why didn't these resistences show up during initial tests? Why is it only after several generations of evolution that new resistences emerge?
Second, it's simply not true that all man-made antibiotics have a natural origin (Trimethoprim, for instance).
Third, you continue to ignore the fact that bacteria
do acquire new 'information' in the form of beneficial mutations. Lembski's
E. coli experiment succicently shows this.
.
