Jump to content


Photo

Mudskipper Is A Fish Or A Toad?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic

#1 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 25 February 2012 - 09:19 PM

I found a picture of a mudskipper with the message "Evolution you are doing it right" the mudskipper appears climbing a tree so according with evolusionist is another proof for the evolution

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 25 February 2012 - 10:12 PM

This picture?

Posted Image
or this?
Posted Image

Looks more like a tree branch that forms an inclined plane out of the water...not a


Posted Image
Big difference.

Mudskippers have been known to crawl along the shore, these angles it is crawling on aren't much different. It is still using those same fin muscles to propel itself along a surface. These pictures you saw are good examples of trolling, because the ability doesn't even remotely correspond to evolution, which requires a change in forms or functions of organisms (such as growing suction cups on their fins, or thumbs to grip bark ridges, etc etc etc). These pictures just show something that could happen before that people didn't know could happen.

#3 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 25 February 2012 - 10:55 PM

This picture?

Posted Image
or this?
Posted Image

Looks more like a tree branch that forms an inclined plane out of the water...not a


Posted Image
Big difference.

Mudskippers have been known to crawl along the shore, these angles it is crawling on aren't much different. It is still using those same fin muscles to propel itself along a surface. These pictures you saw are good examples of trolling, because the ability doesn't even remotely correspond to evolution, which requires a change in forms or functions of organisms (such as growing suction cups on their fins, or thumbs to grip bark ridges, etc etc etc). These pictures just show something that could happen before that people didn't know could happen.


I know but I said that that wasnt a tree but the evolusionist told me its the start of something in a few millons of years that mudskipper will climb big trees its limbs are going to evolve

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 February 2012 - 11:47 PM

I know but I said that that wasnt a tree but the evolusionist told me its the start of something in a few millons of years that mudskipper will climb big trees its limbs are going to evolve


To which you reply, "you assume that it did"

#5 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:00 AM

I know but I said that that wasnt a tree but the evolusionist told me its the start of something in a few millons of years that mudskipper will climb big trees its limbs are going to evolve


Argumentum ad futuris. You can make up all kinds of cool stories about what evolution will do, but it doesn't mean its going to happen, its still just making up stories. Also, if we don't know the past of the mudskipper, we can't know that it has evolved at all. If God created the mudskipper the same as it is today, then evolution is not necessary to explain why it is shimmying up angled tree branches.

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:33 AM

Argumentum ad futuris. You can make up all kinds of cool stories about what evolution will do, but it doesn't mean its going to happen, its still just making up stories. Also, if we don't know the past of the mudskipper, we can't know that it has evolved at all. If God created the mudskipper the same as it is today, then evolution is not necessary to explain why it is shimmying up angled tree branches.


I'm sorry I don't think that is an argumentum ad futuris, as that logical fallacy is normally when someone looks to future evidence to support a claim, rather than the claim being about the future itself. Since in the evolutionists mind the evidence is already here hence no future evidence is needed, (rather their evidence is based on an assumption about the future)



I could be wrong, but what I have written is what I have seen about the argumentum ad futuris.

See my post #1 of this thread for a quote and source
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4926


I agree with the rest :D Just because a mudskipper crawled on a branch doesn't show anything about evolution. The same with the fish that jump out of the water and land in people's dinghy boats.... Is that evidence that they are trying to breathe air and trying to fly or learning to walk etc....

#7 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 26 February 2012 - 12:40 PM

I'm sorry I don't think that is an argumentum ad futuris, as that logical fallacy is normally when someone looks to future evidence to support a claim, rather than the claim being about the future itself. Since in the evolutionists mind the evidence is already here hence no future evidence is needed, (rather their evidence is based on an assumption about the future)



I could be wrong, but what I have written is what I have seen about the argumentum ad futuris.

See my post #1 of this thread for a quote and source
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4926


I agree with the rest :D Just because a mudskipper crawled on a branch doesn't show anything about evolution. The same with the fish that jump out of the water and land in people's dinghy boats.... Is that evidence that they are trying to breathe air and trying to fly or learning to walk etc....


Well it depends. If he is relying on the future, then yes. If he is using currently observed evidence to which he is applying abductive reasoning, then it is not an argumentum ad futuris, but that evidence has not been provided in this discussion.

Often times people assume that evolution is the only explanation, wholly discounting the possibility of supernatural causes (a philosophical belief called naturalism). It is true that science cannot test for supernatural events, but the Bible has recorded such events, so testing the veracity of the Bible is within the realm of forensic science. A naturalistic presupposition is not a requirement of science, nor is it the only logical philosophical conclusion as evolutionists would have you think.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:54 PM

Well it depends. If he is relying on the future, then yes. If he is using currently observed evidence to which he is applying abductive reasoning, then it is not an argumentum ad futuris, but that evidence has not been provided in this discussion.

Often times people assume that evolution is the only explanation, wholly discounting the possibility of supernatural causes (a philosophical belief called naturalism). It is true that science cannot test for supernatural events, but the Bible has recorded such events, so testing the veracity of the Bible is within the realm of forensic science. A naturalistic presupposition is not a requirement of science, nor is it the only logical philosophical conclusion as evolutionists would have you think.


That is the point, the mudskipper crawling onto the branch, (apparently) is evidence and (as you said) assumption based reasoning is used to reach an evolutionary conclusion.


If the person was claiming, in the future X will prove evolution correct, then it is an argumentum ad futuris ;)

#9 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:09 AM

I found a picture of a mudskipper with the message "Evolution you are doing it right" the mudskipper appears climbing a tree so according with evolusionist is another proof for the evolution


Seeing a fish climb a tree is more a proof of the miraculous than of evolution.

Don't get too carried away with silly claims, the mudskipper is a modern animal, its ancestors split from ours several hundred million years ago. But it is interesting as an example of a fish with characteristics of amphibians and showing very specialised adaptions to living in intertidal areas.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 07:40 AM

Seeing a fish climb a tree is more a proof of the miraculous than of evolution.

Don't get too carried away with silly claims, the mudskipper is a modern animal, its ancestors split from ours several hundred million years ago.



As Dawkins would say... Where is your evidence?

#11 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:08 AM

As Dawkins would say... Where is your evidence?


Well you could start here:

http://www.mudskippe...leoecology.html

But if you really care about the evolution of the mudskipper, you'd have to do quite a bit more work.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 08:44 AM

Well you could start here:

http://www.mudskippe...leoecology.html

But if you really care about the evolution of the mudskipper, you'd have to do quite a bit more work.

Well you could start here:

http://www.mudskippe...leoecology.html

But if you really care about the evolution of the mudskipper, you'd have to do quite a bit more work.

Well you could start here:

http://www.mudskippe...leoecology.html

But if you really care about the evolution of the mudskipper, you'd have to do quite a bit more work.


I was asking you for evidence... Not a link.

#13 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 09:16 AM

I was asking you for evidence... Not a link.


The link contains the evidence.
I'm no expert on mudskippers; if you need to know all about mudskippers you need to do a bit of your own work.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:59 AM

The link contains the evidence.
I'm no expert on mudskippers; if you need to know all about mudskippers you need to do a bit of your own work.


No, YOU are the one making the claim, I have asked for evidence, so you are the one that needs to present said evidence.

Just giving a link is akin to.....
http://astorehouseof...lephant_hurling

#15 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:59 AM

No, YOU are the one making the claim, I have asked for evidence, so you are the one that needs to present said evidence.

Just giving a link is akin to.....
http://astorehouseof...lephant_hurling


Yes, I quite see your problem.

Sadly I'm in no position to defend the detail of the evolution of the mudskipper (but you'll find it in that very relevant link), I'm simply reporting on what those that do know say.

You see, I don't find it necessary to challenge every single claim made about every single species on the planet. I've learned enough about the ToE to be able to trust it as a general guide and I know enough about experts to know that they will have applied it properly in their specialist subject.

If the current king of mudskipper evolution puts a foot wrong, I'm sure one of the 100 or so pretenders for the crown will let the world know in no uncertain terms.

I'll be sure to tell you as soon as I hear anything new.
  • MamaElephant likes this

#16 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:34 PM

You see, I don't find it necessary to challenge every single claim made about every single species on the planet. I've learned enough about the ToE to be able to trust it as a general guide and I know enough about experts to know that they will have applied it properly in their specialist subject.

I will respond with this next time someone asks for evidence supporting a specific aspect of erosion left by the flood or the accuracy of the Biblical account and see how well it works.

#17 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 12:48 PM

I will respond with this next time someone asks for evidence supporting a specific aspect of erosion left by the flood or the accuracy of the Biblical account and see how well it works.


It's worth trying but I doubt that it will work.

The problem you have with details of flood erosion is that you'll be arguing with actual experts in flood erosion - people who have spent their lives doing real science on it and can back it up with multiple research papers. So if you want to change their minds on their science you'll have to have all your ducks in a row all nicely polished.

I wish you luck. (I know a good forum if you want to have a crack at it.)

#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:07 PM

It's worth trying but I doubt that it will work.

I agree.

The problem you have with details of flood erosion is that you'll be arguing with actual experts in flood erosion -

I never said who I would be arguing with.

#19 Tangle

Tangle

    Banned

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 27 February 2012 - 01:21 PM

I agree. I never said who I would be arguing with.


That's true :-)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users