Evolution of fish to amphibians is there evidence of limbs growing from existing skeletal structure

Faith & Science Conversation
61

conflating? Really…how do you suppose i am conflating a text i quoted straight out of the Biblical creation account?

  • Gen 1: 26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image,

  • Gen 1: 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.e

  • Gen 2: 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORDb God made them.

  • 5Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

How you can claim Genesis 1 and 2 are different accounts is not only absurd, the text directly contradicts that claim (as highlighted above)

Then the clincher…

  • Ge2: 7Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.d

prior to Genesis 2:7…there was clearly no living mankind…the form in front of God on the ground was essentially dead (from dust you came and to dust you shall return Gen 3:19)

How does one explain that God spoke animals into existence? (they were not formed out of the dust of the earth like Adam)

  • Gen1: 20And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

  • 22Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

  • 23And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

The above texts make it a theological impossibility that we came from amphibians…or any animal and the idea that legs grew in a manner not coming from the spinal column is foolish thinking. The above biblical texts align with my view that there is nothing structurally sound in any form of engineering that works this way. Appendages meant to perform load bearing work on land that are attached purely to flesh are useless and always have been nothing but a liability. I would suggest that any appendages connected in this way would get torn off and we would all slither like snakes!

62

Except that the bible specifically says God formed Adam…it also says God brought each of the animals to Adam to see what he would name them!

I dont read anything regarding natural selection in those biblical passages…and to be honest, how you can apparently read “natural selection” into it is a mystery except to claim far eastern pagan…secular sources???

The Bible makes it very clear that creation was a miracle…not a result of random processes of natural selection.

63

The only place such statements are found here is in your imagination.

You quoted texts from two very different accounts.

The order of events is different, the literary type is different. They are two different stories.

So you think this is false?:

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them."

Tell that to all the mammals whose front limbs – specifically the scapula from which all those limbs depend – aren’t attached to anything except by soft tissue.

The trouble is that you are imposing a modern western worldview onto ancient literature. That keeps you from reading with understanding.

64

Except it doesn’t. The scriptures say nothing about the processes God used.

Please stop insulting the Holy Spirit by demanding that He had to inspire people to write in a way that satisfies you. That demand also insults the writers He chose and the audiences He intended to reach because it dismisses their wordviews as unimportant.

1 Like
65

It’s hard to have any life without environment, without ecology, let alone any changes to either. So ecology drives evolution in exactly the same way that existence of life does? Whatever works.

1 Like
66

If this is helpful, I “liked” the posts for a couple of reasons: (1) because the posts assumed that your request to show information about the transition of fish to amphibian was made in good faith, and (2) they cited credible scientific publications to show the current research on this. Thanks.

3 Likes
67

Oh. I thought you were asking about bone attachments.

2 Likes
68

To clarify, “whatever works” emphasizes that the popular concept of “survival of the fittest” is not true. Any individual that is fit enough survives. I have survived for a while myself without being at the apex of human fitness. How fit is fit enough depends on the environmental conditions, the level of competition, etc.

5 Likes
69

Onychophorans walk fine on legs despite not having any bones. But in vertebrates, the amphibian - like fish do have articulation between limb bones and the axial skeleton. Just as modern mudskippers can scoot across mudflats with their fins, early amphibians and amphibian-like fish would only need to be able to scoot across land - they had no competition from more agile vertebrates. Purely flesh appendages do work to carry loads on land, though - think about elephant trunks.

6 Likes
70

Beat me to it, @paleomalacologist! Incredible animals.

3 Likes
71

Yeah I think these days “survival of the fit enough” is probably a better description.

1 Like
72

you know what St Roymond, seeing as you like insulting people as a source of fact supporting your twisted theology…outline your theological explanation of the following text:

Christ said in Mathew 24, (also found in Mark 10 & Luke 17) the following

“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Please explain it with reference to:

Genesis 6,7,8,&9
Daniel 2
Christs physical death on the cross (cross referencing that its in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15)
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death
The Second Coming - 1 Thessalonians 4: 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 17After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.

Revelation 21: 4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the former things have passed away.”5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new… 8But to the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and sexually immoral and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”

It will be interesting to see how long it is before forum members repeat what they have done many times before regarding any bible writer who taught a literal reading of Genesis accounts of creation and the flood. the usual response from these forums to such passages is that Moses or Paul didnt know science…but they cannot make the claim Christ didnt know science and yet He quotes the flood event., talks about the genealogies, talks about the Tabernacle, talks about Creation…Christ talks about all of these things.

73

Are you able to show me the skeletal structure of Onychophorans?

Are you really going to make the claim we evolved from Onychophorans? (velvet worms for those who may not be familiar).

If you are, would you mind explaining how it is that an animal (velvet worm) that already had limbs and could walk on them, lost those limbs, became an amphibian with a skeletal structure, then regained limbs without any attachment to said skeleton apparently because the evolutionary method suddenly realised its mistake and decided the animal had better regrow them again…albeit without any skeletal support?

Do you see the nonsense of this example now?

74

They don’t have one. That’s the point, Adam, you made a claim:

David and I pointed out that Onychophorans are perfectly capable of bearing their own weight without a skeletal structure, which refutes your claim.

This:

… is you missing the point.

2 Likes
75

You consider this to be twisted?:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds:
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
by whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
Who was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
He suffered and was buried
and the third day He rose again in accordance with the scriptures
and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father,
and He shall come again in glory to judge both the living and dead.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets.
And we believe one catholic and apostolic church;
we acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins
and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

That’s my theology.

And BTW, I made no insult, I made a statement of fact.

2 Likes
76

Jesus used the story of Noah as an example.

Christ didn’t care about science – that’s your idea, that the Bible is interested in the least about science. You’ve made a principle from atheist philosophy into an idol, and thereby make Christianity look foolish.

1 Like
77

(That reminds me of a conversation we have at our house, whether something is a complaint or a statement of fact. ; - )

78

To be precise, onychophorans use fluid pressure as a hydrostatic skeleton. But I also explained that the fish that are ancestral to amphibians did have an adequate level of skeletal support of the limbs to be able to crawl around on land. Beware of nonsense that supports what you want to be true.

3 Likes
79

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

80

I know this auto closed, but thought this pic was a good way to end.

IMG_0282
IMG_0282750×1206 95.6 KB

4 Likes