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

[dread78645]

"Archerfish in marinara sauce" placemark

[OmahaFields]

I had a dogfaced puffer fish in my old salt water tank that spit whenever I walked by.

This Puffer' packed a big spit!

[donh]

OK; but those who make those connections are bound by their priors. A ridge in the brow 1cm longer becomes a new branch on the tree.

As far as I can tell, this doesn't mean squat. The experiments I'm recounting are effectively independent of each other. Nothing about the paleontological time line is in some technical manner a pre-ordained determinent or parameter of the timeline established by calculating molecular distances between species. That's sort of what differentiates science experiments from other human enterprises--trying to throttle back on results that can be affected by the experimenter's pre-conceptions or prejudices.

[Secret Agent Man]

If you're basing evolution on 'advantageous' mutations, the theory fails. There are no such examples of beneficial mutations.

Plus, mutations do not create any 'new' information, it only is able to affect whatever dna information is already there.

Mutation works such as this: let's use an analogy here and treat a word as a piece of genetic code. Say the word is "Christmas".

A cosmic ray hits the word and changes something. You can get "Christ", or Chris, or mast, or rats, but you can never get 'food', book, menu, emu, etc.

Same with the mutations that are observed in nature. You get five-legged cows, or if you've seen the most recent example I've seen, a baby with three arms. The extra arms are not functional, and don't beneficially add to the organism. Same with two-headed turtles or snakes. You will never see a cow with a beak, or wings, because mutations only affect the dna code the animal has.

Besides, dna's main function is to PRESERVE the life-form from CHANGING into something else, not so that x-rays can blast it and scramble it into something else.

[Secret Agent Man]

Polonium halos in the granite - explain that. Capturing their rings in the granite with their small half-lives totally blows that idea away. The earth formed very quickly.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you're basing evolution on 'advantageous' mutations, the theory fails. There are no such examples of beneficial mutations."

Sure there are. What a silly statement.

"Plus, mutations do not create any 'new' information, it only is able to affect whatever dna information is already there."

Again, what an utterly silly and ignorant statement. Of course new information can be created.

"Same with the mutations that are observed in nature. You get five-legged cows, or if you've seen the most recent example I've seen, a baby with three arms."

Those are examples of the most extreme kinds of mutations. Hint: The X-men was a fictional story.

"Besides, dna's main function is to PRESERVE the life-form from CHANGING into something else, not so that x-rays can blast it and scramble it into something else."

No, DNA's function is to provide a rough blueprint for the phenotype the organism. Change is a necessary part of the equation; those populations that don't change with new environmental conditions die out.

[VadeRetro]

Polonium halos in the granite - explain that.

Discredited creationist bad pennies back again over and over and over and over and over. Explain that.

[Coyoteman]

If you're basing evolution on 'advantageous' mutations, the theory fails. There are no such examples of beneficial mutations.

Perhaps no examples good enough for a creationist, but for scientists there are many good examples.

Just for a start, google Sickle Cell Anemia and Thalassemia.

[Coyoteman]

Polonium halos in the granite - explain that.

Easy! That's just creation "science." Nothing to take seriously.

[andysandmikesmom]

Polonium Halos?...I once saw just an awful program about these Polonium Halos, with Robert Gentry, on the Creation Network(which claims to provide scientific explanations for creationism, but in general, from the several programs I have watched, fall far short)...

In any case, if you are interested, there are refutations to Gentrys assertions, about these Polonium Halos...Gentry has proved nothing...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

[donh]

You needn't lie on the bottom to be the fattest little fishy in flounder class, yet there's flounders--kind of a puzzle eh?

You needn't spit water to be the fattest little fishy in the pond--but if you do, and it makes you the fattest little fishy in the pond, chances are your going to have more kids, and those kids are going to spit better, on average, than the other fishy's kids.

[freedumb2003]

If you're basing evolution on 'advantageous' mutations, the theory fails. There are no such examples of beneficial mutations.

Other than the ones documented in Biology texts used in High Schools and Colleges throughout the Western World.

Plus, mutations do not create any 'new' information, it only is able to affect whatever dna information is already there.

By definition, mutation changes DNA. Otherwise you would be a carbon copy of your Mom and your Dad (who would be carbon copies of each other).

Mutation works such as this: let's use an analogy here and treat a word as a piece of genetic code. Say the word is "Christmas". A cosmic ray hits the word and changes something. You can get "Christ", or Chris, or mast, or rats, but you can never get 'food', book, menu, emu, etc.

Word analogies don't apply in a biological framework. The problem with straw men is a little fire burns them pretty quickly.

Same with the mutations that are observed in nature. You get five-legged cows, or if you've seen the most recent example I've seen, a baby with three arms. The extra arms are not functional, and don't beneficially add to the organism. Same with two-headed turtles or snakes. You will never see a cow with a beak, or wings, because mutations only affect the dna code the animal has.

Mutations with no advantage die out (in general, the more disadvantageous the faster the removal). If 5 feet helped a crow overcome 2 legged crows, then over time, the 5 footed crow would eventually prevail.

You really don't know much about science, TToE, or DNA do you?

Besides, dna's main function is to PRESERVE the life-form from CHANGING into something else, not so that x-rays can blast it and scramble it into something else.

Interesting idea. Can you cite any research that supports such an idea?

[freedumb2003]

Like I said earlier -- this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

And these fish can't spit back (since the "Creator" didn't make them that way)

;)

[ZULU]

Interesting fish.

However, it still doesn't shoot down evolution.

Anti-evolutionists will shoot at anything they can to try to ddicredit what's obivous.

[freedumb2003]

Polonium halos in the granite - explain that. Capturing their rings in the granite with their small half-lives totally blows that idea away. The earth formed very quickly.

LOL! Admit it! You are an Evo who posts nonsense to let the rest of us nail you. It's OK, you are with friends.

[Coyoteman]

Anti-evolutionists will shoot at anything they can to try to ddicredit what's obivous.

The problem is, anti-evolutionists tend to hate/distrust/disagree with real science, and so they do not tend to study it. We see the results almost daily on these threads.

As a result, when they shoot at science, many are shooting blanks.

[freedumb2003]

Anti-evolutionists will shoot at anything they can to try to ddicredit what's obivous.

If you catch a few of the firsts posts, you will see that I postilated this SUPPORTS Evolution. Just because someone can't figure out WHY (or the mechanics of) a specific trait evolved, hat doesn't mean it didn't evolve.

But such a highly specialized trait indicates a highly specialized need. Ipso Facto, Evolution.

[freedumb2003]

As a result, when they shoot at science, many are shooting blanks.

Or spitting blanks ;)

[OmahaFields]

You obviously have cell mutation mixed up with cell speciation.

[andysandmikesmom]

I see you beat me to that link...well, that gives him twice to read what is posted there...