Copyright © Built on Rock!

Richard Dawkins What if you are Wrong?

Home          Topics          About Us          Contact Us

The Watch Maker          The Blind Watch Maker          Molecular Motors          Life as Digital Technology          Problem of Site

Multiple Failures of Darwinism          A Missing Link          Another Missing Link

A Built on Rock Website Another Missing Link

So let’s have a close look at this relative of land animals. It is one of the oldest species of fish in the world. It was thought to have been extinct since the end of the cretaceous period (65 million years ago) until to the great surprise of the scientific community a living coelacanth was found. Fossils of the coelacanth have been dated back over 350 million years. The long fins of the coelacanth actually contain bones that resemble toes divided into three lobes. Because of this, it is referred to as a lobe-finned fish. These leg-like fins have earned this fish the nickname, "old four-legs".

The following is information I gathered concerning these fish, the comments in italics are mine.

The eyes of the coelacanth are extremely sensitive to light (Ideally suited for life on the beaches and fringes of oceans and seas then!). They contain a special adaptation which is also found in mammals. It causes the eyes of a cat to glow when exposed to bright light. This highly specialized eye enables the coelacanth to see as much as possible in the lightless environments of the deep sea. (Why would such a creature ever be attracted to adopt, even by a thousand and one steps, the life of a landlubber?) Their diet is believed to consist mainly of squid, eels, small sharks, and other animals that are found in their deep sea habitats. (This means life on land would separate them from their preferred source of food, a source that has never been known to be scarce, and one for which they are perfectly adapted to catch and feed upon) They hunt their prey near deep underwater volcanic slopes and can frequently be seen swimming with their heads down. They have even been seen swimming upside down and backwards. (Not tricks that would serve them well on land other than in a circus) Researchers believe that this behaviour allows them to use a special organ called a rostral gland to help them locate their prey.

The following is from Wikipedia: italics still mine.

‘The rostral organ is a large gel-filled cavity in the snout, with three pairs of canals to the outside. Its anatomy and innervation suggest it is an electro-receptive organ used for finding prey in the dark. (Few, if any land creatures use anything like this to locate their prey; the echo location used by bats come to mind, but few have suggested bats evolved their unique abilities from coelacanths) This is supported by experiments which showed that coelacanths react to electrical fields produced by a submersible. (Submersibles work in water not on land).  This organ is not found in any other animal.” (Why would a creature fitted with such sophisticated biological machinery leave the element that suits it best, salt water?) They can to go as deep as 2,300 feet but are more commonly found at a depth of 300 - 600 feet. Because of their sensitive eyes, these fish prefer the darkness. They are rarely ever seen during the daytime hours or on nights with a full moon. (Consider the distress any move made towards land would cause creatures such as this. They are not even adapted to survive well in moonlight.) They prefer cold water because their gills have trouble absorbing oxygen in warm water.’ (What possible inducement could there be that would drive a mating pair of coelacanths to move closer to land, and therefore warmer water, and then make it their preferred habitat?).

Of course none of the above was known until the discovery of the actual fish. In 1938 some fisherman pulled a living coelacanth out of the sea. Since then many have been found alive and well. How did so many scientists get it so wrong? Every assumption made about the coelacanth was erroneous. Every error was spawned by the need to find a credible transitional fossil. And the reason it went so wrong is because the storyline was all based on a series of faulty interpretations of fossil evidence. All this has happened before and it will happen again and again. Fossil remains are most often just a collection of bones and these can be arranged in such an order as to give false impressions. The land mammal to whale story is following a similar path. Bones of a mammal, Ambulocetus natans, arranged to give the impression of a swimming motion, with soft tissue introduced without a scrap evidence to dress the proposed intermediate with webbed feet. These impressions and interpretations cannot be falsified, unless of course the fossil turns up writhing in a fisherman’s net. If ever there was a fish out of water it is evolutionary theory with regard to fish evolving into amphibians.

‘…coelacanths are more closely related to the tetrapods (mammals, birds, amphibians etc) than to fish such as ray-finned fish or sharks.’

The coelacanth is a fish perfectly adapted to its deep sea environment. It still exists and is fundamentally unchanged. It still occupies the same environmental niche into which it was born. According to the experts the coelacanth goes back around 400,000000 years. It was a fish, is a fish, and will remain a fish until it becomes extinct.

While Ida has never quite recovered from the storms of protest the Coelacanth remains as an icon of evolutionary theory. It is proposed that some lost and extinct offshoot of the coelacanth was a missing link. Evolution cannot be falsified because there is always a way around whatever problem arises. If theologians acted in a similar way they would be ridiculed, and they would deserve it. Evolutionists get away with it because the media is largely compliant and uncritical. Darwinists tend, whenever possible, to keep the fallen upright, simply because they have nothing else to sustain the theory.

The Coelacanth was once thought to be an extinct and intermediate type, something between fish and amphibian.

This fish, thought to have predated dinosaurs, had what evolutionists surmised from the fossil evidence to be proto legs. And being a fossil they could assume whatever they liked, and what they liked and wanted was an example of a fish clambering out of the warm water lapping the shore and shuffling up a beach on stubby fin like legs. The Coelacanth provided just such a theoretical example.

It has been described on the BBC Nature Wildlife website.

‘Coelacanths are more closely related to the tetrapods (mammals, birds, amphibians etc) than to fish such as ray-finned fish or sharks.’