Evolution...?

[Memoria]

So my mom is a devout Christian, and we were having a talk about what came first, chicken or the egg, right? I'm a girl who tries to think logically about things, but I was bringing up the fact that the chicken might have evolved to that point to lay the egg, not just the fact that the chicken just appeared outta nowhere...

and she asked me one question: "What happens when a fish gets lungs?"

I thought and said "he evolves and leaves the water?"

She replied "He DROWNS. Duuuuh."

I thought about it all night. I came up with she had to be right, otherwize it didn't make sense... The fish would die, yeah, but if he floated on top of the water and waited a few million years he could go on land and eat. Wait, he eats what's in the water...! GAHH!

So what do you guys think? Does it make sense to you? Feel free to poke fun at this... I am.

[Xaven]

Remember that amphibians came before mammals.

[Soul of Tarsis]

Bananas fit in the palm of your hand.

There for, evolution is wrong.

[Sergeant Hartman]

Devout Christian LOL.

[Memoria]

That's what I came up with. It's not working. Even logically it doesn't work. Does that mean, though, that the whole creationist theory is true...?

[SoulTaker*]

Um actually, their is actually many amphibians with lungs and gills, that live in the water half their life then live on land the other half. So a fish wouldnt just suddenly get lungs and drown, it would get evolve lungs with the gills and eventually move to land when the gills would be no longer needed and if you dont use something long enough it will not function anymore like if you never used your eyes,brain or any other organ like a tadpole turning into a frog, soon its gills are discarded, look into Darwins theory of evolution.

[Memoria]

Um actually, their is actually many amphibians with lungs and gills, that live in the water half their life then live on land the other half. So a fish wouldnt just suddenly get lungs and drown, he would get lungs and gills and eventually move to land when the gills would be no longer needed, look into Darwins theory of evolution.

...yeah I know about the amphibians but this takes MILLIONS of years to evolve like that, it just doesn't suddenly happen. That's why I'm thinking evolution can't be right...

[Raistlin]

...yeah I know about the amphibians but this takes MILLIONS of years to evolve like that, it just doesn't suddenly happen. That's why I'm thinking evolution can't be right...

huh? You're not listening.

The first land animals were probably amphibians, which could live both on land and in water. What's so difficult about that to understand?

[SoulTaker*]

Really, whats so hard, lets say food is scarce in the water, or you simply cant survive because of a dominate predator, or something, you either develop lungs and legs and move to land or you die. Survival of the fittest.

[KoShiatar]

A fish doesn't just grow lungs from one day to the next. What happens is that a fish with a little capability of using air oxigen is born. This gives him an advantage over other fish, so more of his children survive. One day, one of his descendants will maybe develop thicker fins that let him advance in mud near the river bank...and so on, little by little. That's how it works.
Remember, there are a lot of useless mutations that just die off, many more than the useful ones, actually.

[Dreddz]

Fish's already evolved, havent they ?