Sea creatures to land creatures.

[Spinner198]

How did this happen? Sea creatures becoming land creatures? I know it was supposedly by series of mutations, but how did the sea creature go about defying instinct and journeying onto land? Is there any idea about which extinct animal was the first to be able to survive on land? Also, have we found a fossilized transitional form of the sea creature with mutations allowing it to survive fully on land and in water?

[Azdgari]

Hey, you're back!  Care to answer this?

Sorry, my bad. Species then, species.

Cool.  But I'm curious, Spinner...why did you use the word "kind" in the first place?  What was the reasoning behind your decision to use the word?

Because there must have been a reason of some sort.

[none]

why is it so hard to put these seemingly simple puzzle pieces together....
aquatic life.
aquatic life breathe.
aquatic life breathe air.
aquatic life breathe air have fins.
aquatic life breathe air have fins, skeletons.
aquatic life breathe air have fins, skeletons walk swim and fly.

[Quesi]

I'm certainly not a biologist, but modern day amphibians come to mind immediately.  A quick google gave me this nice site. 

http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/pl%20new/20%20amphibians%201.htm

   For most of earth’s history, there was no life on land.  One reason was that, until photosynthesis had contributed enough oxygen to form an ozone layer, too much ultraviolet light from the sun bombarded the land, making life impossible.  In the Siluran Period, plants and arthropods made the transition to land 100 million years before vertebrates made a similar transition.  Although moving from aquatic to terrestrial life seems like an enormous change for a fish, a variety of modern ray-finned (actinopterygian) fish, such as mudskippers and walking catfish, have adapted to terrestrial life by crawling on their fins, adapting their gills for air breathing, and/or gulping air with a swim bladder.

[Graybeard]

Try this to start with [wiki]Tiktaalik[/wiki]

However, I wouldn't want you to start the silly creationist game of, "What about the creature that was before the Tiktaalik and the fish." Which, when I produce something, then becomes, "Well what was between that and the fish... etc" until we are sick of it."

Look at this: [wiki]List of transitional fossils[/wiki]

[Spinner198]

Hey, you're back!  Care to answer this?

Sorry, my bad. Species then, species.

Cool.  But I'm curious, Spinner...why did you use the word "kind" in the first place?  What was the reasoning behind your decision to use the word?

Because there must have been a reason of some sort.

Tbh, I've been to the creation museum a few times and the word kind was mainly used to describe species of animals related to each other like horses, zebras, giraffes, etc.

I didn't know my wording was such a big debate point.

I'm certainly not a biologist, but modern day amphibians come to mind immediately.  A quick google gave me this nice site.

I can understand amphibians being brought up as they can go from land to water, things like mudskippers as well. But my main question would be how they went about getting onto land, going from water to mud to land certainly seems like it would make sense but then there is the question of why would a sea creature go to the mud. I don't want to get into the usual process of getting a link to a fossil that might fit the bill of surviving in such an environment and being told that is proof of how it happened, I understand that most all answers would be speculations and assumptions but it just seems to me that the odds of randomly mutating all organs necessary to survive (not hindered any more than it's previous form) in the current biome and a new unknown biome on top of being transported to said unknown biome within the distance of another said creature of the opposite gender that went through similar random mutations... you get the point, speculation about what the animal looked like or what it could have been, I've seen before but the actual process of chance that would have taken place to go through a drastic change of environment like the sea or a river to a even just a pool of mud and then land. I know the answer is probably that we do not know how but it happened, however that isn't really more helpful than saying a puzzle piece was made randomly and somehow fit another randomly made 4 surrounding pieces.

[Graybeard]

The answer is in the first Wiki article I linked to (I wouldn't like to think you are ignoring my points) but most fish have a swimbladder - because there is a small amount of oxygen/CO₂ exchange in it, this was probably the thing that became a lung/lungs.

[Graybeard]

it just seems to me that the odds of randomly mutating all organs necessary to survive

Yes, well it didn't happen overnight, did it? It didn't even happen all together, small changes in small organs and attributes until life on land was possible for a short time and then longer and longer. We are talking millions of years.

[wright]

Hey, Spinner198.

I don't want to get into the usual process of getting a link to a fossil that might fit the bill of surviving in such an environment and being told that is proof of how it happened, I understand that most all answers would be speculations and assumptions but it just seems to me that the odds of randomly mutating all organs necessary to survive (not hindered any more than it's previous form) in the current biome and a new unknown biome on top of being transported to said unknown biome within the distance of another said creature of the opposite gender that went through similar random mutations...

You're making a couple of assumptions here that are simply incorrect. For one, mutation is random, in that a given change is vastly unlikely to occur exactly where / when it will offer an immediate advantage to the organism carrying the mutation. But natural selection is decidedly not random, and will continually eliminate organisms that carry disadvantageous (for a given environment) mutations while correspondingly favoring traits that offer even the slightest advantage.

I may be mistaken, but you seem to imply that mutations often result in drastic morphological changes to an organism (like organ systems). In fact evolutionary theory predicts (and is borne out in the fossil record and genetics) that such changes are always incremental, allowing them to co-evolve with the other traits needed (for example) to transition from sea-dwelling to land-dwelling.

For another, you seem to have this concept of animals undergoing mutation / natural selection in isolation. But evolution acts on entire populations simultaneously, so that there are thousands upon thousands of organisms carrying a given mutation or set of mutations. In the case of sexual reproduction, at any given time in a species' history, for an individual to find a suitable mate is not a major problem.

you get the point, speculation about what the animal looked like or what it could have been, I've seen before but the actual process of chance that would have taken place to go through a drastic change of environment like the sea or a river to a even just a pool of mud and then land. I know the answer is probably that we do not know how but it happened, however that isn't really more helpful than saying a puzzle piece was made randomly and somehow fit another randomly made 4 surrounding pieces.

You have a concept of evolution that is seriously distorted. You are also quite ignorant of the amount of evidence we have for the ongoing process. In fact, the progress of life (vertebrate and invertebrate) from sea to land is quite well understood at this point. Here are some links. Though you may not use them, perhaps some onlookers will be interested:

http://transitionalfossils.com/: a good summary of some major fossil lineages and key discoveries in them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/: a helpful index of common creationist claims / fallacies and the evidence against them.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01: a useful intro to the basics of evolutionary theory and how it is essential to modern biological science.

Frankly, that you're essentially asking the same kinds of questions you asked in this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21001.0.html) makes me wonder about your sincerity in looking for answers.

[Spinner198]

I know I might have seemed to get a bit sidetracked, but my main question was how a sea creature would transition into/onto the mud, land, etc. If they did mutate parts that would allow them to survive on land, would they know to go up onto land, or would they have to be put there by a force out of their control? Would their instinct mutate as well causing them to simply know to go into a biome or ecosystem that their species is unfamiliar with that their new organs/limbs would function in better than their current environment? Or would something have to happen such as a wave, gust of wind or whatever that thrusts them onto the land where they then use their organs and body parts suited for aquatic life to survive on land as well? Then would the creature suddenly realize it's ability so that it could go back into the water to reproduce or would it have to find a mate on land? How would their instinct adapt to their situation? I know I have talked on this forum before but I am mainly here now asking for answers to know what answers I would receive. I have seen those wiki articles linked before but am not really interested in debating the evolution or series of mutations that would allow them to survive on land, but instead how they went about making the transition from sea to land, or from sea to mud to land. Did they have new information in their instinct to tell them, did they defy instinct and/or wander onto/into it by chance, did an outside force take them there?

[Traveler]

Have you ever studied the Galapagos Islands? I ask because animals have adapted there in unusual ways. The marine iguana, for instance, now swims, dives, and eats underwater foods. Why? In search of food. Iguanas are a land animal. These iguanas, rather than compete for food with all the other land animals on the islands learned, over time, to seek food in the water. And over time their bodies adapted to make it easier for them to do so. The flightless cormorant lost its ability to fly. Why? Because there are no predators there, and they no longer needed to fly to escape them. They're basically becoming more like a penquin. A flightless bird that swims, dives and feeds underwater, just like a normal cormorant. And they stand in the sun with their useless wings spread out to dry, presumably because their instincts tell them to. But the wings are no longer useful except as swimming aids.

[jynnan tonnix]

I know I might have seemed to get a bit sidetracked, but my main question was how a sea creature would transition into/onto the mud, land, etc. If they did mutate parts that would allow them to survive on land, would they know to go up onto land, or would they have to be put there by a force out of their control? Would their instinct mutate as well causing them to simply know to go into a biome or ecosystem that their species is unfamiliar with that their new organs/limbs would function in better than their current environment? Or would something have to happen such as a wave, gust of wind or whatever that thrusts them onto the land where they then use their organs and body parts suited for aquatic life to survive on land as well? Then would the creature suddenly realize it's ability so that it could go back into the water to reproduce or would it have to find a mate on land? How would their instinct adapt to their situation? I know I have talked on this forum before but I am mainly here now asking for answers to know what answers I would receive. I have seen those wiki articles linked before but am not really interested in debating the evolution or series of mutations that would allow them to survive on land, but instead how they went about making the transition from sea to land, or from sea to mud to land. Did they have new information in their instinct to tell them, did they defy instinct and/or wander onto/into it by chance, did an outside force take them there?

It's not that they developed mutations which would enable them to breathe on land, then decided to try living there. More than likely there was some change in their environment, or some predator which forced them into shallower waters, and the random mutations which enabled those forced into living in a drier environment or flopping out of the water for whatever reason to better survive would have been the ones which were passed down. Eventually, over the course of millions of years, these tiny changes would add up to an organism or creature better suited to life on land than in the water.

[Spinner198]

Though the examples of the marine iguana and flightless cormorant don't exactly exemplify specifically evolution, thank you for the answers.

[Ambassador Pony]

If they did mutate parts that would allow them to survive on land,

^ this.

When you read something about mutations, what "parts" do you imagine? It seems as though you think a mutation is a fish born with legs all of a sudden.

[none]

Though the examples of the marine iguana and flightless cormorant don't exactly exemplify specifically evolution, thank you for the answers.

to simplify use analogies:
are you looking for the beer can example...?
a beer can that is both closed and open?
a transitional beer can that has been identified to illustrate evolution from the closed to the open state of being?

[wright]

I know I have talked on this forum before but I am mainly here now asking for answers to know what answers I would receive. I have seen those wiki articles linked before but am not really interested in debating the evolution or series of mutations that would allow them to survive on land, but instead how they went about making the transition from sea to land, or from sea to mud to land. Did they have new information in their instinct to tell them, did they defy instinct and/or wander onto/into it by chance, did an outside force take them there?

We are linking to those articles and others because we feel they answer your questions in greater detail. Why should we spoon-feed you all the answers, even assuming we know them?

If you're sincere in wanting to inform yourself, then you need to make some effort on your own behalf. Read the information that others have summarized and linked to, assimilate and think about it on your own. The answers to your questions can be found, or at least a great deal of them, but they will mean much more to you if you actually seek them out yourself.

That you're asking the same kinds of questions again and again, when others have repeatedly addressed them and offered references to further information, suggests that you are ignoring the people replying to you. That's the kind of behavior we see most often from creationists who've already made up their minds and are just trolling.

[Anfauglir]

I know I might have seemed to get a bit sidetracked, but my main question was how a sea creature would transition into/onto the mud, land, etc.

One reason might be the gradual reduction of their habitat.  The large body of water gradually becomes smaller and shallower.  Food that grew on the sides becomes more and more out of the water.  Food sources become scarcer for the creatures that remain entirely in the water....but the ones that are able to survive for juuuuust a little while in the air can reach the food that would otherwise be out of reach.  So they eat more, live longer, and the next generation in the pond will be more likely to be able to last outside of water.....and so it goes on.

But yeah - any cartoons of a fish suddenly launching itself out of the water onto a beach can be safely discounted.

[Fiji]

All you really need is a non-steep/gradual edge to the water. At first, there will be nothing eating the plantlife in those shallows since none of the fishes can get to it. Therefor the plantlife will be abundant. Abundant platlife = abundant energy for any ceature that can get to it. So, in a population of fish, the one with ever so slightly more powerful/rigid/sturdy pectoral and/or pelvic fins will be able to go furthest into the shallows and eat the most. It will produce more offspring, being better fed, and among its offspring, the ones with even stronger/sturdier fins will again have the advantage.
In time, other adaptations, like the swim bladder others have mentioned aiding in breathing give furture generations an additional leg up. And since there are loads of things to eat on dry land, adaptations towards living outside the water continue to be rewarded in subsequent generations.

Another scenario is one where those with the strongest/sturdiest fins are best at escaping predators.

... or a combination of both scenarios.

There you go, fish to land-dweller, in small steady increments, no magic needed.

[Hatter23]

Because there must have been a reason of some sort.

Notice amphibians lay their eggs in mud. Mimimizing the chance of gettinging your offspring gobbled up as quick available sources of calories and protein is selection process. The less dependent one was on gills to get ones oxygen would allow a creature to lay their eggs further and further from the shore. For things like mudskipper the longer you could survive out of the water even by a couple of hours would increase your chances of survival and therefore having offspring.

It is not unlike the eye, there are plenty of reasons for the intervening steps

[natlegend]

And then to really freak you out, there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

The cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are marine mammal descendants of land mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by:
Their need to breathe air from the surface;
The bones of their fins, which resemble the limbs of land mammals
The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.

Nature is crazy, eh?

[Fiji]

^^ isn't there a species of turtoise that has gone from marine to land to marine to land to marine (I don't remember the exact number of reversals but it was a lot)

[natlegend]

^^^ It's turtles all the way down mate...

 

[Fiji]

yeah, I always get the two mixed up (plus a spelling mistake ... for shame) probably due to working with TortoiseSVN for way too long. The spelling mistake is due to my brain being parked in last week friday.

[EV]

Try this to start with [wiki]Tiktaalik[/wiki]

However, I wouldn't want you to start the silly creationist game of, "What about the creature that was before the Tiktaalik and the fish." Which, when I produce something, then becomes, "Well what was between that and the fish... etc" until we are sick of it."

[natlegend]

Just thought I'd drop that in for a bit of light hearted humor...

[Anfauglir]

Looks like Spinner's pushed off again.  I wonder if he got the answers he wanted?  Or if he left because he DIDN'T get the answers he hoped for?

[Asmoday]

Both is a possibility.

Personally I always wonder how people get the idea that the transition from sea to land must have happened in such a way that one day a fish thought "Hm...those apples over there on the tree look mighty tasty. OK, guys, I'm leaving the pond."
That the transition happened in tiny steps and had nothing to do with fishes decisions to leave the water but more with the area the particular fish population stayed in over a very long time seems absolutely unbelievable to them. No idea why that is.

I mean, if they look at everyday stuff, they'd never expect an empty tub to just fill with water the instant they turn the valve. Or they'd never think the instant you crack open an egg, it magically turns into an omelet. Or when they park the car outside and come back next morning to find it buried under a huge pile of leaves or snow, they would never think that ton of snow / leaves must have come down at the very same moment all in one.
Nothing works like that. It's always a gradual process that takes time. Yet when it comes to evolution they go full herd-di-derp and suddenly can't figure out for themselves that evolution doesn't mean "Oh, there was a fish and he could see that there was land outside the water and then he decided to go outside and suddenly, poof, the fish was a land animal with legs instead of fins and a lung instead of gills" 

[nogodsforme]

^^^They have the same thinking process about things like the global flood. Geology is about gradual and incremental changes, layers of sediment, plate tectonics, mountain formation, etc. But that stuff takes too long for fundies. See, the Grand Canyon was made all at once by the rushing water....

So, if they can believe that, why can't they believe a fish growing legs all at once?

[wright]

Personally I always wonder how people get the idea that the transition from sea to land must have happened in such a way that one day a fish thought "Hm...those apples over there on the tree look mighty tasty. OK, guys, I'm leaving the pond."
That the transition happened in tiny steps and had nothing to do with fishes decisions to leave the water but more with the area the particular fish population stayed in over a very long time seems absolutely unbelievable to them. No idea why that is.

I mean, if they look at everyday stuff, they'd never expect an empty tub to just fill with water the instant they turn the valve. Or they'd never think the instant you crack open an egg, it magically turns into an omelet. Or when they park the car outside and come back next morning to find it buried under a huge pile of leaves or snow, they would never think that ton of snow / leaves must have come down at the very same moment all in one.
Nothing works like that. It's always a gradual process that takes time. Yet when it comes to evolution they go full herd-di-derp and suddenly can't figure out for themselves that evolution doesn't mean "Oh, there was a fish and he could see that there was land outside the water and then he decided to go outside and suddenly, poof, the fish was a land animal with legs instead of fins and a lung instead of gills" 

Exactly. They seem to have this cartoon-like, time-lapse idea of drastic change; that it has to happen fast enough for them to perceive or it's impossible. It's an incredibly childish, ignorant viewpoint.