Mudskipper: A Partially Evolved Fish?

I have to admit, if there was ever an animal that looked like it evolved, it’s the Mudskipper.  This animal is both an amphibian and a fish.  It can breathe under water and on land.  Surprisingly, there are several other animals that are able to do this as well (Lungfish, Wooly Sculpin, etc).  Despite these facts, the evidence still says that the Mudskipper is created, not evolved.

Regardless of what textbooks and bias teachers say, evolution is unproven.  There has never, ever been a transitional fossil found.  In other words, there has never been a single bone found that shows an animal transitioning, or evolving, into a different animal.  There have been many claims about such fossils, but not a single one has ever proven to be real.  If evolution takes millions of years and we are still evolving, then we should find half evolved animals everywhere.  Evolution is simply not happening in the world around us.

While the Mudskipper is claimed to be proof for evolution, the fact remains that the Mudskipper has never produced anything other than another Mudskipper.  All Mudskippers produce other little Mudskippers.  There is no proof that the Mudskipper has ever evolved.  So, the only other viable solution is that God created the Mudskipper exactly as it is.  Let’s take a look at several amazing characteristics God has given the mudskipper.

1. How the Mudskipper Moves.  Obviously the Mudskipper needs to move in and out of water.  So, it has a fishlike body and tail for propelling through the water, but it also has specialized, and unusually strong, pectoral fins that are used like legs to move around on the mud.  It also has interesting eyes.  It is very unique for an animal to see well in and out of the water, but the Mudskipper is able to do both.  Its eyes are extra clear out of the water, are retractable, and moisten themselves so they don’t try out.  All of these qualities are essential for the Mudskipper to survive in and out of the water.

2. How the Mudskipper Breathes.  When it comes to breathing, the Mudskipper is like a fish and a frog.  Fish breath by separating the oxygen in the water and bring it into their bloodstream.  Water is constantly passing over the fish’s gills so it is able to get enough oxygen.  In order for these to work properly, they must constantly be moist.  This is why the Mudskipper must stay where it is wet.  If it wanders too far from water, it will die.  However, the Mudskipper also has enlarged gill chambers to hold water.  Not only will this give it extra oxygen to breath, but it will help keep the gills moist and functioning for a long time out of the water.  Frogs can breathe through their skin.  They have tons of little blood vessels called capillaries on the surface of their skin which takes the oxygen in the air and brings it into the bloodstream.  The Mudskipper is able to breathe both of these ways.  Not only does it have gills to breathe under water, but its skin also brings in oxygen like frogs.  Beyond this, the Mudskipper is also able to gulp air.  It has tons of little capillaries in its mouth and throat which allow it to take in oxygen that way as well.  Despite the fact that it can breathe more than one way, the Mudskipper is only able to survive out of the water for 3 ½ days.  Eventually it must return back to the water to continue living.  However, the fact that the Mudskipper can breathe three different ways is astonishing.

3. How the Mudskipper Reproduces.  This is where things start getting interesting.  Eventually a female will come into the male’s burrow and lay eggs.  The Mudskipper’s burrow is in a “U” shape.  Since Mudskippers live close to water, the bottom parts of their borrows will be filled with water.  One side reaches the surface while the other side remains underground but comes up enough to where there is an air pocket. So, the female will lay eggs up in the air pocket on the opposite side of the burrow.  While this keeps the baby Mudskippers away from harm, the problem is that they will eventually run out of air.  Since the Mudskipper is able to “gulp” air, it will take a breath, swim to the other side of the burrow and exhale the fresh air up into that air pocket.  All of the eggs will die if their air supply is not replenished frequently.

The Mudskipper is definitely a very strange creature.  At first glance it may look like an evolved animal, but by looking at all of its abilities, the evidence argues otherwise.  How did the Mudskipper evolve the perfect abilities (fins, breathing, eyes, etc) to live in the water and on the land?  How did the Mudskipper know the eggs would die in the air pocket if the oxygen wasn’t replaced?  How did it develop the ability to gulp and exhale air when its primary forms of breathing are through the gills and skin?  All of these would have to evolve at the same time with no mistakes in order for the Mudskipper to live.  But this isn’t how evolution works.  It speaks of slow change over millions of years.  This is not consistent with the mudskippers abilities all linked together.  This is consistent with being a creation of God though.

Just like every animal, there is a clear design and logical purpose behind each and every ability.  The Mudskipper is definitely high on the unique scale, but it proves the existence of God just the same.

CHECK OUT THIS GREAT VIDEO OF THE MUDSKIPPER

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Mudskipper: A Partially Evolved Fish?

  1. Hey,
    Just wanted to respond to a few of your questions…

    1) The Mudskipper evolved these perfect abilities through mutations by becoming a “fit” species. Eyes only evolved once. Breathing is necessary for this fit also.
    2) The Mudskipper knows the eggs will die if the air pocket is not replenished. The question should be.. What happened to the derivatives of the Mudfish that didn’t know?
    3) It’s a great example of transition.

    Contact me anytime 🙂

    • Hey Paul,

      Thanks for reading and responding.

      You raise some good questions about the Mudskipper. I would like to respond to some of your objections.

      1) It is easy to say that the Mudskipper evolved these abilities, but many times we overlook just how complicated this parts really are. The eyes, gills, and moving capabilities are not simply processes. The Mudskipper would have to develop these abilities flawlessly and quickly in order to survive. All it takes is one of these parts to not work properly or to be in “transition” and the Mudskippers would die off because they couldn’t breathe or see. They would have had to evolved almost immediately in order to actually survive. The eyes, gills, and other breathing forms are so intricate that the only logical explanation is that they were created. There is no evidence that the mudskipper has been anything other than a mudskipper. There isn’t a single transitional fossil that has ever been found valid (of any animal). Why would this be the case if bones really can last “millions of years”? Wouldn’t they be everywhere?

      2) How does the Mudskipper “know” that the eggs will die? First of all, we must not forget that this is an unintelligent animal. It doesn’t think, reason, and solve problems as we do. How did it figure this out? Also, it would have already had to have evolved all of its seeing, breathing, and moving capabilities in order to reproduce the way it does. If it can’t move around, it can’t dig the holes. If it can’t see above water then obviously that wouldn’t work. If it can’t gulp air then the babies die. There are just too many small details that all have to work together perfectly for evolution to be valid here. You said, “What happened to the derivatives of the Mudfish that didn’t know?” The answer is that they have always known through instinct because that is how God designed them.

      One other thought. Fundamentally, evolution is all about gaining, not losing. The mudskipper can see in and out of water. It can move in and out of water. It can breath in 3 different ways. I don’t know about you, but if we evolved, then why wouldn’t we have kept these abilities and added on to them. I would love to be able to breathe under water and see perfectly underwater. I would love to be able to see and fly like a peregrine falcon or an eagle. I would love to be able to run like a cheetah. There are so many amazing attributes of animals that would be awesome to have as humans, but we don’t. And there is no evidence that evolution made us “give up” some of these abilities in oder to have our superior brains. This just doesn’t fit evolution’s fundamental point at all.

      Thanks again for your thoughts Paul. I hope you take my comments in the cordial way I am writing them. I would love to hear back from you.

      Brett

  2. Hey Brett,

    Thanks for replying. Yes I welcome respectful debate as you have shown here. 🙂 And you raise some very good points. My Dad shares your view by the way, and I have had many interesting, and also intense, debates with him.

    Your first point is possibly so Darwinian you almost wrote the book. You are exactly right. The processes are complicated and any derivatives of the mudfish that couldn’t do these tasks, as you have commented, would have died out. They wouldn’t fit. The Mudskipper as we have it now, could, and did.

    It seems a little cliche to answer your second point with – evolution sorted that out for them. But. In a way it did. The Mudskipper we have today can accomplish this task. The ones that couldn’t died out.

    Your final point is flawed. Evolution is about both. We gain fit species while we LOSE the unfit. Again you are drifting into my argument. There are few species that overlap abilities. Yet, as you state, the Mudskipper can see in and out of water. Can breathe in and out of water. And can move in and out of water. Few species can. But they did. And so does the Mudskipper.

    You are right. There are many amazing abilities we can view in the animal kingdom. Abilities far beyond our own. Perhaps as Gods favoured species, he would have been so generous as to bless us with them.

    • Hey Paul,

      You bring more good thoughts.

      You claim that my points are similar to Darwin. The only commonality is that both he and I noticed several flaws in his theory. My point is that the processes are so complicated that it is impossible for these changes to have occurred. I will even point out that science agrees that evolution is impossible. The technical term for it is a “scientific impossibility.” Basically, the odds are so outrageous that it is impossible for them to occur. For example, when you consider all the variables, just the fact that we are the right distance away from the sun, we have the right tilt, we have our moon, etc. is scientifically impossible. This doesn’t even get into having the right atmosphere, having water, minerals, etc. It also doesn’t touch on all the complexities of forming just a single solitary cell, much less an entire animal. You said that the “Mudskippers we have now could and did” beat the odds. How do you know this? When we boil it down, there is not one shred of evidence that they evolved. This is why evolution is called a “theory” and not a “fact.” There are no transitional fossils. There is no evidence of any animal ever being anything other than what it is. Hippos produce Hippos. Giraffes produce Giraffes. Mudskippers produce Mudskippers. There is not a shred of proven evidence that has shown different.

      You said that “evolution sorted that out for them.” Once again I will ask for the proof that this was sorted out. If the mudskipper, or any other animal for that matter, showed a clear evolutionary transition, I would have to agree with you. The evidence says otherwise though. It is one thing to say that evolution sorted this out for them and say that they somehow made it past all of these issues, but it is a whole different thing when we look at actual evidence.

      Let me clarify my point about how evolution is about gaining, not losing. I’m not talking about “survival of the fittest” or how the species who weren’t good enough died out. Obviously there are losses. I’m also not saying that evolution is 100% about gain and no losses. My point is, generally speaking, an animal gains new abilities or new functions in order to survive better. Therefore, to survive better, to be a “fit species,” it gains things. The problem is, why all of a sudden do these multiple abilities go away (only a few animals do these kinds of things). Wouldn’t any animal who can breath in and out of water be more “fit” to survive? There are just too many inconsistencies.

      Thanks for the respectful discussion.

      Brett

  3. Hey Brett

    This has become rather interesting.

    When a scientist says the word theory… It opens up a whole other ballgame. We are not talking about random, senseless, trivial experiments here. We are talking about tried and tested observations in a controlled environment. All the time creationists use the word “Theory” and don’t understand the rigorous tests that are applied. Darwins “Theory” of evolution was just one of these examples. He was afraid of it too. Having been ear stamped for a role in his local church, even his wife was horrified at the consequences of his discoveries, as was he.

    Lets get philosophical here for a moment. Darwin was genuinely concerned about the reactions to his discoveries. He was not trying to deceive anyone. There was but one motive in his quest. The truth. A maxim the majority of scientists today follow. There is no agenda, there is no conspiracy. Scientists today are merely presenting you with the truth, to the best of their knowledge. If they don’t know the answer. Then they don’t know the answer. And are humble enough to admit that. There is no need to invent conditions that do not exist in the mean time.

    As for conditions being so horrifically complicated as to be unexplainable. Well we have been upgrading that for years. How about telling an ancient egyptian they could one day step on a flying mechanical bird as they once stepped on a horse drawn cart. How about telling a candle stick maker that at some point we could illuminate a city at the flick of a switch. We are evolving my compadre.

    As has the entire world. Species have appeared and disappeared. We have had extinctions as well as species that have continued to exist. We have an ever changing world where we have measured that the atmosphere a millennia ago was simply not the same as it is today. We have a Universe. Vast, expansive. As humans can we really make a leap and say we know what is going on?

    Do we make a truth that suits ourselves. Scared little beings not willing to embrace the real picture. Or do we realise, we are minuscule and unimportant in the big picture. Yet great and important to ourselves, possibly our families and our own lives?

    • Hey Paul,

      Sorry for the delayed reply. I had a very busy week and got sick on top of everything.

      I am not saying that a theory is comprised of random, senseless, and trivial experiments. I know there have been many very complex, detailed, and controlled experiments in evolutionary research. My doubt has nothing to do with a lack of quality for these tests and experiments. My doubt comes from the lack of evidence that came from these tests and experiments. No matter how well it is tested, the bottom line is that a theory means it is not proven, and yet evolution is paraded around as if it is a 100% proven fact with no problems or contradictions. This is where I begin pointing people back to the fact that evolution is a theory. I’m not the only one who has come to this conclusion either. There have been many evolutionists who have come to the same conclusion. Here are just a couple…

      – “The final result of all my investigation and study, namely that the idea of evolution tested by experiments in speciation and allied sciences always leads to incredible contradictions and confusing consequences (on account of which the evolution theory ought to be entirely abandoned)…” (Dr. Heribert Nilsson, “Synthetische Artibildung,” Lund: C.W.K Gleerup Publ, p. 11). Dr. Nilsson is professor of Botany at the University of Lund, Sweden.

      – “There is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution, but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of nonscientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutions show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science” (Thompson, W.R., “Introduction,” in Darwin C.R., “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Sixth Edition, 1872, Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967, reprint, p.xii).

      You also said, “Scientists today are merely presenting you with the truth, to the best of their knowledge. If they don’t know the answer. Then they don’t know the answer.” While I think this is true in most scientific fields, I don’t think this applies to scientists studying evolution. Here is one example: “Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths” (Richard Lewontin, “N.Y. Review of Books”).

      On top of all of this, there are many evolutionists who will flat out discriminate against creationists. Again, I will point you to quotes from evolutionists:

      – “Creationism should be discriminated against. No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed” (“Journal of the National Center for Scientific Education,” Fall, 1984, p. 19). The guy who said this is a professor at a university.

      – “Any professor should have the right to fail any student in his class not matter what the grade record indicates if that professor discovers the student is a creationist” (K. Frazier, “Skeptical Inquirer,” 8, Fall, 1983, p. 2-5). This is another professor at a university.

      There are plenty of evolutionists who have these exact mindsets. If these scientists really want the truth, then why would they be so hateful towards creationists? Evolution has become so popular in our world that many scientists are scared to speak out against evolution for fear of losing their jobs (there have been many people who have claimed these things in documentaries, online, etc). The evidence once again points to evolution not being as “truth seeking” and honest as we are led to believe from the media and in our schools.

      Switching gears, there is a major difference between changes in culture and the evolutionary process. Of course an ancient Egyptian wouldn’t be able to understand flying in an airplane, and of course an illuminated city would seem ridiculous to an old candlestick maker. But here is where your illustration doesn’t make sense. The ancient Egyptian and candlestick maker couldn’t understand it because of the huge gap in knowledge of those topics. So, while they couldn’t understand them just by that statement alone, they could come to know it if they were shown through facts and evidence. If we took the candlestick maker and taught him about electricity, and light bulbs, and all of that, could he not eventually understand it? Of course! Though harder, isn’t the same true with the Egyptian? If by “we are evolving” you mean that our society is increasing in knowledge, experience, technology, etc, then sure, I would agree with that. But “evolving” technologically is completely different than our world “evolving.” We have seen the step-by-step process of the change in technology. We have not seen any hard evidence of this in evolution. Also, I didn’t say that it was so complicated that it was “unexplainable”; I said it was so complicated that by scientific definition it is impossible.

      You made some very key statements and asked great questions at the end of your last post. “Who are we really to say what is going on?” But doesn’t evolution clam to know what is going on by teaching in so many schools that evolution is fact? As you said, “we are miniscule and unimportant in the big picture.” This is exactly what I think as a believer in God. God is supreme and He knows how this universe works and runs, I don’t. I can look at the evidence, however, and see where it points. The more I get into it, the more the evidence points towards an intelligent Creator and supreme God.

      I realize this post was rather long. Sorry about that. Thanks again for keeping this conversation civil and polite.

      Brett

      • Hey Brett,

        Me again 🙂 Hope you are good

        Ok. On your point about theory. Well. Gravity is still a theory. Newtons 3 laws are a theory. Pythagorean theorem is a theory. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity. In the scientific world, the word theory has a definite meaning. And always did. But over time I suppose we have started to use it a little arbitrarily. “I have a theory that the next bus will come as soon as I start to walk to my destination”. In the scientific world theories are as close as we have to facts. But safe guarded from being absolute, they always have the room to develop.

        Evolution is not, by genuine scientists at least I hope, paraded around as 100% proven fact. It is however, the best model we have for what happened after life got here to date. Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin. We have learned a lot in the past 150 years and will learn much more in the future. It is best to keep up with the most recent version of the theory. One that is constantly expanding.

        I have said this before, but I really must suggest that as far as science is concerned evolution merely deals with what happened once life got here. It does not deal with what happened before, it has nothing to do with the big bang, it doesn’t tell us what happens after this life, it has no suggestion about whether or not there is a heaven. I know atheists who believe this. I know christians who believe this. It doesn’t need to affect the bible at all.

        Unless

        You are a young earth creationist

        or

        Dont believe in theistic evolution,

        Another point, as far as evidence for the bible goes. Most creationists justify evidence for the bible, by providing evidence in the bible. It’s a circular argument. The bible is true because…….. the bible says it is true. And thats fine. It boils down to faith. The proper scientific view is that, from an evidence point of view, we started with nothing. And gradually put the jigsaw puzzle together. Through the study of testable, repeatable observations. If we can’t explain it we admit it. We don’t say some other higher power stepped in for us. We simply admit we haven’t worked it out. Yet.

        I must add I have no time for someone who is a creationist hater. Much the same way I have no time for an evolutionist hater. I think we both have valid and important roles and it is most important we discuss them in a respectful manner. There is no room for anything less in a civilised society.

        The only reason I made an analogy to real world things is because I have often had debates with creationists and they use examples such as buildings to explain a creator. A building was designed so there must be a designer right? Evolution is only concerned with organic existence.

        A final note. We have both touched on the idea of irreducible complexity in the past few posts. My notion on that would be that just because we think we cant understand something, doesn’t mean we will not in the future.

        Cheers Brett.

        Perhaps we could set up a friendly debate over skype sometime.

        I may learn something 😉

      • Hey Paul,

        Hope everything is still well with you. I tried some time back to email you and continue our discussion, but I never heard back.

        I see your point about the word “theory.” While gravity is a theory, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say gravity isn’t real (just climb a few flights of stairs, or a mountain, or jump off a building). There is evidence all around us that proves gravity is real. With most theories, there is a great deal of proof. The problem is, evolution is not supported with proof like gravity. One can’t really deny gravity, but evolution can be denied because of a lack of evidence. A person can parade around claiming evolution as truth, but where are the facts? So, it seems that evolution should be degraded from “theory” to something else. Maybe “faith” would be the term.

        You hope that Evolution is not claimed as 100% fact, but that is exactly what is happening! Watch TV. Read a book, magazine, or a textbook. Nearly everything talks about how an animal evolved 7 million years ago, or the earth was formed from nothing billions of years ago, or any other evolutionary subject (and they give genuine scientists as sources). It is stated as fact when it’s not. It’s deceitful. Very very few times from such sources have they ever given a glimmer of doubt about their claims. The truth is, it’s claimed as 100% fact. Maybe not by everyone, but that is what is being said to millions of people who watch TV and/or read. You said, “If we can’t explain it, we admit it.” I would love to see these words in action with evolution. The problem is, this would mean text books, TV shows, professions, museum exhibits, writers, etc, etc, all supporting evolution would be seen as invalid. Scientists claim evolution can be explained, but fail to explain it with hard evidence.

        Some do try to prove the Bible from the Bible itself. However, the Bible can be proven outside of itself (which is a whole other conversation). Christians don’t claim to be without faith. A person has to have some level of faith to be a Christian, but there are also facts to support our beliefs.

        I feel like this discussion could go round and round. Nonetheless, I just wanted to focus on two facts:

        1. There is not one confirmed transitional fossil ever found to support evolution.
        2. Man has never created living material from non-living material.

        These two points are the building blocks of evolution. I’m still yet to see any proof in these areas.

        I appreciate your attitude towards creationists, and I hope I am not coming off like a evolutionist hater. I definitely do not hate the people, I just have a problem with something presented as truth without facts (with any topic), as I have probably stated ad nauseum by now :).

        Enjoy your day.

        Brett

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s