Science, Creation & EvolutionFlatfishesEven if the 'tree' I posted about the descent of flatfish is incorrect, you can probably see that flatfishes are more likely to family of the 'regular' fish, opposed to cartilaginous fish, like sharks and rays. On this forum it is assumed that dinosaurs that evolved into birds is an example of macro-evolution (it doesn't mean everyone AGREES with the theory however). Macro-mutation: I'm currently reading a book by evolutionist Richard Dawkins, called Climbing mount improbable. In this book he showed an very interesting photo to demonstrate macro-mutation: On this photo you can see a toad, which is born with eyes in its mouth, and regular skin on the spot where you'd expect eyes. It needs to open its mouth to see. Micro-mutations would be what sets (for example) every human apart from each other. The colour of the eyes can vary: this would be micro-mutation. A radical new place for the eyes would be macro-mutation. I do not claim that macro-mutation is useful. Its more often a DISadvantage, if not a deadly 'mistake' (a heart that is located OUTSIDE of the body for example. Our cat had such a 'mutant' kitten last year.). Now what can we say about flatfishes? When they're young, they look like regular fish. When they mature, the eyes shift to one side and they adopt a way of live on the bottom of the sea. The stages the fish goes through are (in my opinion) representative for the way the evolution of the flatfish must have gone. It only leaves one important question to be answered: - Do you think these fish could have evolved into the flat, a-symetric fish we see today (from a kind of fish that must have looked a bit like young flatfishes) WITHIN 6000 years or - Do you think that god created flatfishes deliberatly a-symetric, including the 'normal-to-flat' stage in its youth. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame