The Fish that Walks: A Genetic Bridge?

The Fish that Walks: A Genetic Bridge?

Evolutionists suggest that there are a number of species of fish that may qualify as a link between fish and amphibians. The mudskipper, climbing perch, and lungfish all feature characteristics that allow them to spend some time out of water. But can we make the logical leap to believe that all biochemical information from molecules to man passed through a genetic bridge spanning water to land?

The fact that there are a few creatures that possess features that allows them to survive in both environments does not refute the creationist contention that they were created with these features in the first place. Evolutionists point out these species that exist today as examples of an evolutionary transition that happened millions of years ago in the past. Do they expect, then, that the mudskipper or lungfish will continue evolving into people given enough time? Perhaps such creatures might give an evolutionist some comfort on a superficial level, but the argument is as fallacious as lining up your silverware to prove that forks evolved from spoons. A similar problem is the origin of flight: it would have had to evolve at least four times, in birds, bats, insects and flying reptiles. It makes more sense that our creator solved this problem once and incorporated flight four times in unrelated species.

One of our objectives is to show that a creationist position is reasonable, and easy to believe given the scientific facts. There is nothing illogical about believing in a creator who built all animals different, but with similar master plans. How could life survive unless an abundant supply of life-sustaining proteins with the same biochemical components was available as food? But evolutionists ask us to believe that the genetic information that codes for all land dwelling living systems passed through a conduit such as the mudskipper, or somehow materialized afterward.

I write computer applications for a living. Computer code does not materialize without a programmer. Living systems contain a three-dimensional computer code that tells your fingers to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Your eyeballs do not grow to two inches in diameter, nor does your tongue grow to two feet in length. We observe that this marvelous dance of DNA, RNA and proteins provide for tremendous variety within a species, but is self-regulating, self-repairing and copies itself with tremendous accuracy. There is no reason to believe that this amazing system was different and simpler in the beginning. It is at this level that the logical argument for Darwinism fails.

Creationists believe that all life on earth started from various created kinds, and the diversity of life was built within the “wild-type” genetic information that coded for the construction and replication of this life. Speciation takes place when various populations of these creatures are isolated and through mutations or genetics, some information is lost. Evolutionists have the impossible task of demonstrating to us that gain in information is probable and likely over millions of years. But like the system that never was backed up, genetic information is much easier to destroy than it is to create. If you examine the biochemistry behind it, it is much easier to believe that a creator designed this amazing system of life.