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

[andysandmikesmom]

TheCreationNetwork comes to mind...you know, those wacky 1/2hr programs, that, at least in my area, come in a couple times a week, on one of the religious channels...

I have seen about 6-8 episodes on this channel, and they really are just dreadful...there is so much evangelizing, and advertising their viewers opinions, and of course, the usual attempt to entice viewers to buy their tapes and DVDs, that there is almost no time at all left for any science, and what they claim is their 'scientific presentation', can and is refuted by 'true' scientists...

[js1138]

I admire the cast ironity of your stomach.

[shuckmaster]

But why are there still monkeys?

Because bananas would take over the world if humans had to eat them all themselves.

[From many - one.]

Venus Flytrap amd Sundew plants move.

So do slime molds. Slime molds are not plants and they are not animals.

Can they die?

What about an organism with flagella, that can and does move, but also chlorplasts?

[PatrickHenry]

First there was nothing. Then it exploded!

[Whoop-de-doo! Stops those Darwinists every time!]

[shuckmaster]

lol! Sometimes I get up early to watch the dinosaur guy sell his books and tapes. Now that they've found that saddle out there in Arizona, there'll be no end to it!

[b_sharp]

"I'm betting you don't have a clue as to what a polonium halo is. Something you found on one of those wacky creationist sites, right?"

Holy rocks? Does it also have polonium wings?

[andysandmikesmom]

I actually loathe that CreationNetwork and the rubbish they run...but I watch it, to try and see what kind of stuff they are promoting...what they are best at is promoting the sale of their tapes and DVDs...

What is really starting to bore me tho, is their testimonials...not because of the content of what they are saying, but because its the very same testimonials over and over and over and over...they never had any new ones...which makes me wonder if just the usual 5 or 6 positive testimonials is all that they have...and they are constantly asking for people to phone in their testimonials...so its a big old mystery, why they run the same stuff over and over and over again...it would seem to me, that having new testimonials would prove to the viewers, how valuable their programs are...its a puzzle..

There is also something else I have noticed over this time, and its also puzzled me...of the programs that I have watched, the majority of the presenters have an accent...Now, there is nothing wrong with an accent, I rather like foreign accents, but it leads me to question where these presenters are born, and where they got their educations...the minority of the speakers appear to be Americans...what does that mean, I wonder?...Does it mean that there are more foreign born and foreign educated scientists, as opposed to American born and American educated scientists who support creationism as opposed to evolution?...I am just curious about this, and wonder if anyone has any thoughts on this...

[Secret Agent Man]

I know exactly what a polonium halo is. You obviously don't.

[Secret Agent Man]

If it's so gosh darn silly why didn't you post any examples of beneficial mutations?

[Oztrich Boy]

But why are there still monkeys?

To make monkey moonshine.

[Secret Agent Man]

Ummm, yeah, I know a whole bunch of people that would die to have sickle cell anemia. Aren't a bunch of scientists actually making designer babies specifically to have sickle cell anemia?

[Secret Agent Man]

Wow, I am sure glad you admit how dumb you are. What an appropriate screen name.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If it's so gosh darn silly why didn't you post any examples of beneficial mutations?"

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

BTW, just so you know, humans have on average about 4 mutations every generation.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ummm, yeah, I know a whole bunch of people that would die to have sickle cell anemia."

If I were in a malaria infested area I would sure as hell like to have the sickle cell trait.

[Coyoteman]

Ummm, yeah, I know a whole bunch of people that would die to have sickle cell anemia. Aren't a bunch of scientists actually making designer babies specifically to have sickle cell anemia?

You didn't google it like I suggested.

You wrote "There are no such examples of beneficial mutations." I posted two examples showing you are wrong.

You came back with a remark showing you don't understand the problem. Google it!

You apparently don't have a clue as to the significance of what I posted, or why these are "examples of beneficial mutations."

[bwc]

BTW, just so you know, humans have on average about 4 mutations every generation.

Years ago we were told that is another reason not to marry your own cousin, and then there would be the requisite joke about Arkansas or Appalacia. LOL

The closer the couple are on the family tree, the more danger their is in passing along a mutation, and that is detrimental as a rule.

Happy Independence Day everyone.

[js1138]

The closer the couple are on the family tree, the more danger their is in passing along a mutation, and that is detrimental as a rule.

That would be a recessive allele, not a mutation. Nobody expects the Spanish Mutation.

[From many - one.]

Try this is you want to read about a beneficial mutation:

http://www.secs.iub.edu.bd/TechNews/ScienceTech/science/009.htm

[Dimensio]

Wow, I am sure glad you admit how dumb you are. What an appropriate screen name.

It appears that you believe that insulting an individual provides a valid rebuttal to their statements. You are incorrect. It is not.