I don't know why I'm bothering with you. Legs and lungs on a fish mean nothing about evolving toward land? How about if it has hair, teats, and looks like a cow?
You can draw an inference. That's all. That's not the same as evidence that it actually did happen, or even could happen. The question of whether it COULD happen is hardly proven or even shown to be likely. Evolutionists generally skip this step, not feeling it necessary in view of the overwhelming evidence, etc. According to irreducible complexity theory, it can't happen.
I also can't figure out how, within the evolution theory, you account for a fish with lungs. What survival advantage did it confer? That's the only way a mutation can result in a new species under evolution theory, if it increases their survival, survival of the fittest, etc. There's a hell of a lot of fish that have no lungs, so this hardly seems plausible. Or did the fish in some sense "know" it was supposed to evolve into an amphibian?