The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution

Vertical Thought Magazine ^ | June 2006 | Mario Seiglie

[DouglasKC]

The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution

This unusual fish uses a specialized system to blast insects out of the air. How could this evolve slowly over time when there is no survival advantage without the whole system working perfectly?

by Mario Seiglie

In Asia, Africa and Australia lives a remarkable creature, the archerfish, that shoots down its prey from the air above it with a burst of water. It uses its tongue and the top of its mouth to form a groove similar to a gun barrel. Then, by compressing its gills, it squirts water up to six feet with deadly accuracy—in spite of the distortion caused by seeing the target from below the surface of water.

What's so amazing about the archerfish's ability to shoot straight? When light passes between air and water, it is refracted, which causes a distortion. If an archerfish simply aimed at the object where it appeared to be from below the water, it could never hit its target! Yet scientists have found that archerfish are able to strike their target when sighting upwards at angles of 40 degrees!

More amazingly, marine researchers have discovered that these fish can hit their prey whether the amount of refraction is large or small. They have also found that the fishes' binocular vision allows them to see clearly at considerable distances above them, an ability other fish do not have.

An experiment

Here is an experiment. In a clear glass of water, hold a pencil at an angle halfway under the water and look at it from different positions. Notice how the pencil appears different below and above the water. That is the refraction of the light changing from the water to the air.

So how can the archerfish compensate for this distortion and know how to shoot at the right place?

Evolutionists don't know

Evolutionists still don't know how the archerfish got its amazing abilities. They can only wonder! Viewed through the distortion of evolution, they cannot explain how the archerfish gradually learned to not aim where its eyes see but to aim instead at a different spot where the target actually is.

Without its binocular vision, it could not see the object with such precision, and without the special shape of the upper mouth and a specialized tongue, it could not make the groove it needs to shoot the concentrated jet of water. Many factors have to appear together—and be perfectly formed—for this shooting mechanism to work. This, of course, goes totally against Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is based on a gradual, step-by-step process.

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (1859, p. 171).

The archerfish offers precisely such an example, since several complex systems must all appear at the same time, perfectly and not gradually formed—binocular vision, a specialized mouth and tongue, specialized gills to compress and expel water and an aiming system based in the brain and not in the eyes. If any of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not hit the target and no survival advantage is created.

Shooting down Darwin's theory

When you get down to the facts, the archerfish with one squirt of its gills shoots down Charles Darwin's entire theory of evolution—and that by Darwin's own admission!

So evolution doesn't have the answer to this mystery. But the Bible does. Genesis 1:20-21 says that God created all the creatures that live in the water. He created a great variety of perfectly formed fish, including the archerfish with all its special features, such as binocular vision, other specialized organs and a built-in ability to compensate for the distortion of the water. VT

[Dimensio]

Evolutionism is based upon the foundation that only naturalistic and materialistic causes exist for not just life here on earth but the entire cosmos from the point of origin until now.

And how have you determined that I believe this? Also, what would be the name of the philosophy that does not believe this?

Creationism is based upon the foundation that our world and the cosmos itself testifies to an active Creator, still involved with His creation.

And what of those who do not necessarily believe this?

The words creation and evolutin, on the other hand, represent the proposed processes by which things have come into existence, each in accordance with its respective worldview.

It would appear as though you are applying existing terms and attempting to attach them to specific, rigidly-defined philosophies. This does not account for those who accept a "creation", but do not believe that such creation is "testified" by the world and cosmos, and also does not account for those who accept evolution as the means by which life has diversified, but still accept supernatural causes as part of the origin of all that currently exists. You are then attempting to assert that any who accepts valid science that contradicts one specific philosophy (creation) necessarily adheres to the philosophy that you call "evolutionism". This is a false dichotomy, and shows that your fundamental premises are faulty and thus your conclusions cannot be trusted.

Second, let’s not pretend that one’s worldview or philosophical belief system does not constitute one’s “religion”—no matter how little or how much it has to do with the supernatural in general or the Bible in particular. Regardless of any scientific corroboration, what many (if not most) of evolution’s proponents practice is the promotion of one worldview or philosophical belief system (i.e., religion) over and against another.

You are now attempting to assert that scientific discoveries that contradict specific religious worldviews are a deliberate attempt to overthrow those worldviews. This is also a false claim. It is not the fault of reality that it produces results contradictory to the religious beliefs of others. Moreover, it is not honest to claim that those who uncover these aspects of reality are attempting to promote one worldview over another.

Third, notwithstanding widespread popular ignorance (some of it apparently willful), a growing body of empirical science points out serious flaws in contemporary evolutionary thinking, while affirming the biblical creationary model.

I am unaware of any actual empirical science that has produced results that you suggest. Do you have any references?

This hardly renders evolution “science” and creation “not science”. On the contrary, the scientific viability of evolution has been brought into question in recent years by an ever increasing number of highly qualified scientific professionals, not all of whom have been biblical creationists.

Please provide references to support this assertion.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Before sin, there was no death."

Are plants alive?

[Junior]

Evolutionists don't know

Therefore Godidit. Can there be any stronger commentary on the uselessness of creationism and it's bastard stepchild, Intelligent Design?

[Liberal Classic]

The beauty of this argument is, in thirty years it will be back again.

[DouglasKC]

Sometimes it seems like you understand the ideas of evolution and other times I wonder if you are falling back into some preconceived notion?

I wasn't an expert by any means but I understand the ideas of evolution because I used to believe in evolution for many many years. However, when the God of the universe taps you on the shoulder (metaphorically speaking) and shows you the error of your ways you tend to listen. I gladly fall back into MANY preconcieved notions because they were conceived by God. I know nothing.

[Central Scrutiniser]

[blasater1960]

Yep, I have been using this fish as an example for years. Along with the spider that crawls down the blade of grass, under water and blows himself a diving bell with air and hangs out in the air bubble waiting for prey to swim by.....a trait like that is not evolutionary.

[freedumb2003]

Before sin, there was no death

I almost have no response (almost).

Clearly there was death. It is even in the Bible. In the old Testament, thousands were killed. This is spiritual death, not physical death.

That is why your posts are confusing.

[freedumb2003]

Yep, I have been using this fish as an example for years. Along with the spider that crawls down the blade of grass, under water and blows himself a diving bell with air and hangs out in the air bubble waiting for prey to swim by.....a trait like that is not evolutionary.

Any trait that prolongs the survival of a species is, by definition, evolutionary.

[freedumb2003]

OMG!!! That is HILARIOUS! ('especially because it is true).

Herewith stolen.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

just as the other posts have pointed out, God created all GOOD, sin caused decay and death to enter the world.

there would be no need to design evolution as evolution is by its very nature, a wasteful murderous way to produce anything.

an all knowing and loving God would not create with a process that uses death and destruction for His creation.

Problem with that is, by creating or allowing free will, God allowed decay and death to enter the world. He must have expected -- indeed, if all knowing, He knew -- that death and decay would emerge from His act of granting free will.

Therefore, death and decay must be part of God's plan to some greater goal we may be able to guess at, but cannot certain of. And if death and decay is part of God's plan, then He may well have used with regard creating or allowing the process of evolution.

[donh]

no, its called variation, as those variation have certain limits and will not cross past them, thus the finches remain finches, the bacteria remain bacteria, the man and woman, remain men and women, that is called design.

Uh huh. God, in his wisdom, invented variation and selection thousands of times over, 'cause He was too limited in his powers to get the darn thing to operate on full throttle. Yup, that makes super good sense.

[freedumb2003]

This hardly renders evolution “science” and creation “not science”. On the contrary, the scientific viability of evolution has been brought into question in recent years by an ever increasing number of highly qualified scientific professionals, not all of whom have been biblical creationists.

LOL!! So "creation," which cannot be tested, proved. disproved, or even OBSERVED is somehow not in the realm of "not science?"

I am glad this thinking wasn't around when they were developing airplanes, else they would operate exclusively on prayer.

[FairWitness]

in the future they will either die out or stay relatively the same or evolve into something else....is that too hard of a concept to accept?

Well that seems to cover the bases. Kind of lacking in mathematical precison though. That is a major reason why it is so hard to convince many people that evolution is "real science". When it can be put into an equation it can't be argued with.

[phantomworker]

...shows you the error of your ways you tend to listen.

What do you mean? Once you understand how evolution works, how can you go back to not understanding?

[freedumb2003]

all of your posts reek of pure humanism and disdain for anyone who questions your god of neo darwinism, that is obvious to anyone, as it your elitest, condescending attitude to anyone who posts anything contrary to your religion.

Oh believe me, you Bible-thumpers have the corner of the condescension and disdain. And willful ignorance is NOT something God approves of.