Page 73 - Darwinism Refuted

Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar)

The "transition from water to land" scenario, often maintained in evolutionist
publications in imaginary diagrams like the one above, is often presented with a
Lamarckian rationale, which is clearly pseudoscience.

chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with
a lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism
should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that
will hold water inside the body. What is more, this chain of mutations has
to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.
No evolutionary biologist would ever advocate such a chain of
mutations. The implausible and nonsensical nature of the very idea is
obvious. Despite this fact, evolutionists put forward the concept of
"preadaptation," which means that fish acquire the traits they will need
while they are still in the water. Put briefly, the theory says that fish
acquire the traits of land-dwelling animals before they even feel the need
for these traits, while they are still living in the sea.
Nevertheless, such a scenario is illogical even when viewed from the
standpoint of the theory of evolution. Surely, acquiring the traits of a land-
dwelling living animal would not be advantageous for a marine animal.
Consequently, the proposition that these traits occurred by means of
natural selection rests on no rational grounds. On the contrary, natural
selection should eliminate any creature which underwent "preadaptation,"
since acquiring traits which would enable it to survive on land would
surely place it at a disadvantage in the sea.
In brief, the scenario of "transition from sea to land" is at a complete
impasse. This is why Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, considers this
scenario as an unscientific story:

71