That’s an assumption as well. Would you not agree that fins and other bodily protrusions cause drag in the water? These can also be used to push water behind and propel the animal, so it’s quite easy to see how it might be an advantage.

Nevertheless, I am not familiar with the evolutionary steps of every single organism on the planet. Anymore than you are familiar with exactly how god created the universe or guided evolutionary design.

——————————————-

“What I'm doing is saying don't be narrow minded but be open to having your theory questioned.”

No problem. Do you question your own “theories” with as much vigour?

——————————————-

“Tiktaalik is not an evolutionary link, it's just a fish much like the mudskippers of today are just fish.”

What features would you expect a transitional species between fish an amphibians exhibit? How do you explain the fact palaeontologists predicted both the location, age, rocks, and features this creature would exhibit?

——————————————-

“Geologist Paul Garner writes:”

Interesting that you quote a geologist on a biological matter.

“Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage.”

Which is what the fossil and DNA evidence suggest. For a better example, check out the evolutionary history of horses (who fossilise relatively easily, leaving a tremendous record)

“However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.”

Hasn’t this rock studier ever read a biology book? Errors in the DNA replication process leading to variation in allele frequency upon which natural selection can act. There, was was not hard at all.

Who said disproving one theory proves another? I didn't. What I'm doing is saying don't be narrow minded but be open to having your theory questioned.

"Given up on the fish to amphibian transition and now moving to the changes in shoulder joints?"

Huh, no, just challenging your bald statement that this tiktaalik is what you say it is. Evolutionists such as yourself throw out these statements without any corroborating evidence and when someone raises a huge problem with the scenario that they're presenting they can't give you an answer and try to evade. Tiktaalik is not an evolutionary link, it's just a fish much like the mudskippers of today are just fish.

Geologist Paul Garner writes:

‘[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills. However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.’

I do not have the specifics regarding the ancestry of every living and extinct species on the planet, but I do understand the process by which it happened. Slowly, through successive generations. Let's say we started with a worm like creature, but due to genetic variation (what you would label "micro evolution") some had little bumps on the sides of their bodies. This enabled them to move through the water just a little bit better than its neighbour thus giving it an advantage over its competitors. It could catch food just a little more easily, or evade predators just that little bit better. This gives this organism a better chance of surviving and passing on its genes to the next generation, and so the process continues. Eventually we see the emergence of fully formed "fins" which are vastly superior to the original species mode of transport.

While your asking questions about evolution, can you tell me how disproving one theory automatically proves another? What does evolution have to do with a god? Furthermore, can you please explain the details surround exactly how god created the Earth, moon, and stars?

"Do ring species add any new material into the gene pool…"

All DNA is comprised of 4 base characters, just as the English language is made from 26. New words are not created by inventing new letters and new organisms do not appear by inventing new DNA "letters".

"… in a way that proves evolution or is it simply de-evolution"

There is no such thing as de-evolution. The "goal" of evolution is to survive and pass on your genes. It's better to be dumb and alive than smart and dead. It's better to be slow and alive than fast and dead. Etc.

"The truth is that nothing new is added therefore putting an end to your argument."

There are errors int he DNA replication leading to change. Change IS new information and all that is required for evolution to occur.

"The fish that you mentioned earlier (tiktaalik) as the link between water dwelling fish and land dwelling animals has more problems than answers…"

Given up on the fish to amphibian transition and now moving to the changes in shoulder joints?

"What is your definition of evolution?"

The change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

"It didn't actually play out the way it's laid out here as we would answer each others questions in long posts and then the other would reply"

I tried my best to keep the conversation intact, but present it in a way that would enable people to follow the conversation. If you look at earlier posts they are essentially cut and paste. At this stage this become complex due to the number of threads running, so I needed to give people a hand.

"…he's one of the few atheists that I've been able to have a decent conversation with, without being insulted too much :)"

I am not always this way, but I know you and like you :)

I had been keeping your identity secret, but you have let the cat out of the bag now. Cross posting does not take that much time and considering the amount of effort that we both put into this discussion I thought it would be kind of a waste to keep it private. I sincerely hope you are not offended by my actions.

I will answer your questions, but for now I need to remain horizontal for around 7.5 hours and switch my brain to standby.

Andrew how does a finless fish evolve into a finned fish? When I said that my uni lecturer didn't tell me it was because there was no evidence that it ever happened. Do you have evidence that she didn't?

Do ring species add any new material into the gene pool that substantially change the organism in a way that proves evolution or is it simply de-evolution? The truth is that nothing new is added therefore putting an end to your argument.

The fish that you mentioned earlier as the link between water dwelling fish and land dwelling animals has more problems than answers. Have you heard what the palaeontologists who discovered it think? As a fish it has a solid shoulder girdle but the animals that are drawn in evolutionist text books as the next stage have multi jointed shoulders – how did this happen? Why would it happen "accidentally by chance"?

What is your definition of evolution? You've stated that I don't know so I'm interested in yours?

BTW everyone, I'm the pastor that Andrew has been chatting with :) Sorry to have inflicted you all with such a long conversation but hopefully it was helpful. It didn't actually play out the way it's laid out here as we would answer each others questions in long posts and then the other would reply.

Can I say though that I've enjoyed talking with Andrew as he's one of the few atheists that I've been able to have a decent conversation with, without being insulted too much :) I mean at the end of the day he's wrong and I'm right so I can afford to take the high ground right? LOL :) just kidding!!

Evidence of some of the early bickering survived in the books attributed to St. Paul which made it into one of the three Canons accepted by current branches of the Christian Church. BTW, which Cannon does your church accept as "the word of god"?