Different in degree or kind: Egnor's take; more on gaps (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 24, 2016, 13:08 (2952 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My hypothesis, in line with the cases we know of, is that environmental conditions caused organisms to make the changes. Here’s a website explaining the advantages of primitive lungs, which obviously have a long history.

1. How did fish evolve lungs? - Quora
https://www.quora.com/How-did-fish-evolve-lungs

DAVID: Sorry, but I've read your article, which is filled with Darwin-speak. A swim bladder is a swim bladder, not a lung. Evolution to lung is assumed. Where is the provable research? Not in fossil evidence
dhw: They categorically inform us that the swim bladder evolved FROM (not to) a primitive lung. It is the primitive lung that is my focus, not the swim bladder.

DAVID: I admit I was unaware of current theory re fish lungs and swim bladders. From Berkeley:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_09
DAVID: Note that the lung came first. God anticipating land creatures.

The article I referred you to stated categorically that the lung came first, you said the opposite, and now you are telling me that the lung came first! My point is that primitive lungs clearly existed in different organisms that lived in water and used them in water.

DAVID: Look at the supposed uses. to me that is Darwin-speak, all suppositions, no proof stated.

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that enhancing stability in the water, filtering carbon dioxide out of the bloodstream, oxygenating the blood in hypoxic environments, all represent a far more rational supposition than “God anticipating land creatures”. Do you think your God gave them primitive lungs for no reason at all except to reduce the work he needed to do when they stepped onto land?