A report carried on the BBC"s website on 12 April, 2006, considered a new species of fish discovered by Belgian scientists and described in Nature magazine. The report, titled "African fish leaps for land bugs" described how the fish, given the scientific name of Channallabes apus, had the ability to hunt insects along the shore of the swamps in which it lives. In experiments replicating the fish"s natural habitat, scientists observed that when hungry this fish will trap an insect in its mouth immediately alongside the water and then return to it. Sam Van Wassenbergh, a biologist from Antwerp University and one of the authors of the Nature magazine article, told the BBC that this behaviour " will help to explain how fish moved from sea to land millions of years ago."
Van Wassenbergh speaks of the transition from water to land as if it were an established scientific fact and gives the impression this latest finding can shed light on this indisputable fact. The fact is, however, that the way the Belgian scientist refers to the scenario of a transition from water to dry land as a definite fact in his analysis of the fish stems solely from his having adopted the theory as a dogma. There are profound anatomik ve i?levsel differences between fish and the terrestrial vertebrates alleged to be descended from them. Land vertebrates have a skeleton capable of bearing their weight. Fish do not. In addition, in contrast to fish, terrestrial vertebrates have to make efficient use of water. They do this by means of systems including such complex organs as the kidney, which fish lack. Furthermore, fish have gills whereas terrestrial vertebrates have lungs. A scenario that maintains that a line of fish overcame all these physiological differences in an entirely chance and unconscious process, acquiring brand new biological systems, is entirely the product of the imagination. No observations of the type required have ever been made and evolutionists have not seen even a single example of random changes in a living thing"s DNA producing even one functioning protein, the building block of the cell, let alone a new organ or system. In the absence any data-enhancing scientific observations there is evidently nothing at all realistic about a scientist speaking of a transition from water to land as if it were an established scientific fact.
If Van Wassenbergh really believes in the transition from water to dry land, then he can repeat the insect hunting experiment on the fish they discovered over and over again, and he can observe whether or not the fish acquires the structures to permit it to turn into a land vertebrate. He may even bequeath this task over the generations, to his children and grandchildren. Yet even after hundreds of thousands of years the fish observed by his descendants will still be Van Wassenbergh"s fish of today. That is the way of thinking compatible with reason and science, and also the sole truth. Because the scientific evidence shows that species do not change throughout their time on Earth and that there is no evolutionary mechanism in nature.
We advise the BBC and Van Wassenbergh to abandon these errors and to accept, in the face of modern scientific findings, the fact that both the transition from water to dry land and the theory of evolution in general consist of an impossible scenario.
1. For more detailed information about the transition from water to dry land scenario, you can use this link to see other unscientific aspects of the BBC report.
2. You can read our comprehensive response to the evolutionist claims regarding Tiktaalik rosea, which is briefly mentioned in the report, here.