>So were we all amphibians?
>
Let me cite the Scripture:
Romans 9:20 (NIV) But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like
this?'"
That is what antievolutionists may very well be doing to God.
>> Ichthyostega-- Is the first animal with feet but they
>> are different than most tetrapod feet. They are much like
>> Acanthostega but has 7 digits on his hindlimb. He has lungs. His
>> legs were only good for being in water. They could not support
>> his weight. (Coates and Clack, 1990, p. 67) These are half
>> evolved legs since they have more digits than the normal tetrapod
>> but fewer bony rays than the fish and they are unable to support
>> the weight. This contradicts Gish's statement that there are no
>> half-evolved feet. (Gish, 1978, p. 79) Ichthyostega had external
>> nasal openings and a choana like that of the Panderichtys
>> (Schultze, 1990, p. 35). His tail was long with fins above and
>> below like that of Panderichthys and Acanthostega. (Carroll,
>> 1992, p. 46). His legs were tetrapod having humerus, ulna and
>> radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the
>> hindlimb. (see diagram Carroll, 1992, p. 46).
>
>I do appreciate all your hard work in looking up all this information but
>do you really believe that our legs evolved from fins? I can't buy that
>but at any rate as stated earlier I do not contest eye witness accounts of
>fish walking out of water.
>
Yes. Look, You are not hearing the details that I am presenting to you from
the Christian apologists. Why? they say things that are contradicted by the
data. Acanthostega had a half evolved leg. Panderichthyids had lost fins and
only had fins where the tetrapods have legs now. No other group of fish lost
those fins.
In answer to your question, YES. Whether you can buy it or not is not my
problem. The observational data is consistent with the evolutionary position
and not with the ICR position.
>
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm