See why Fish could not have Evolved into Amphibians

Evolutionists claim that amphibians evolved from fish. This page will examine this erroneous belief.

The coelacanth has fins shaped like paddles. There are

Evolutionists claim that the paddles of the crossopterygians Evolved into legs. They claim that the rhipidistians Evolved into the first amphibians, animals capable of living on land and in water. Toads and frogs are both amphibians.

There are many problems with this "belief". First, the rhipidistians and the coelacanth lived at the same time. They both are said to have become extinct millions of years ago. The rhipidistians are said to have Evolved into amphibians, and the coelacanth just simply died out.

Except that the coelacanth was found alive and unchanged less than a hundred years ago.

If time is a necessary ingredient to Evolution, then surely time would have the same (or a similar) effect on the coelacanth that it did on the rhipidistians. Yet the coelacanth has not evolved in the supposed millions of years that they have been in existence.

It is safe to conclude that the rhipidistians didn't evolve either.

Some Evolutionists have begun to realize that the fossils do not support their belief on the origin of amphibians. Consider this quote from Evolutionist J.R Norman:

"The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes.."
(J.R Norman is from the Department of Zoology, British Museum of Natural History, London. RQB #47)

What Norman is saying is that when fish first appear in the fossil record they are 100% fish. They are not 80% fish, 20% amphibian. There is no fossil evidence of fish having evolved into amphibians.

If there was an evolutionary progression, then fish would have to be millions of years older than amphibians, and consequently in much lower rock strata (this argument is meaningless though, if as Creationists believe many of these layers of rock were laid down during the flood. There would be no real progression from one strata to the next).

But this is not the case. Amphibians are found in the same layer of rock and also in strata below those of fish. So from an evolutionary point of view, the "offspring" (amphibian) can not come before the "parent" (fish).

In the cases where fossil fish are found in layers below the amphibians, the fish:

" no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods..."

"Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl,"Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution", McGraw-Hill, NY 1974 pg. 148&195 Quote #48)

Here you have an Evolutionist admitting that there is no evidence of fish evolving. She says that Evolutionists have had to "speculate" how it could have happened.

Despite a lack of evidence to support it, they force themselves to believe that it happened this way.

Evolutionists use the fact that amphibians are here today to try and prove that they evolved millions of years ago. It simply does not make sense.

But there is a better way to look at this. Use the fact that amphibians are here to prove that they were Created.

The only alternative to Evolution is Divine Creation. An option they will not accept because it makes them accountable to God.

What Evolutionists believe about the origin of amphibians has proven to be incorrect. The observable, testable, demonstrable evidence does not support Evolution.

So where did fish and amphibians come from?

I believe that I know the origin of the fish and the amphibians: God created fish and amphibians both as separate creatures.
They are still different to this day. With no links between them.

If you have any questions on Creation, Evolution, or just want to say "Hi" please feel free to email me.

| Main Index |

as of 2/03