We have heard tales of scientist saying animals evolved from water to become land animals, dey even used a fish the coelycanth as a missing link of this transition, only to be shamed wen d fish was caught alive without any changes

If the transition was true, den how will dey explain dis
The Kidney Barrier
Fish release harmful byproducts in their bodies
directly into the water. Terrestrial animals,
however, need kidneys. Therefore, any animal
that makes the transition from water to land
requires kidneys before making the change.
However, kidneys have a highly complex
structure. Moreover, a kidney has to be fully
formed and flawless if it is to function. Only
50%, or 70% or even 90% of a kidney will
serve no purpose. Since the theory of
evolution is predicated on the idea that organs
that are not used disappear over time, a kidney
that is 50% lacking will be eliminated from the
body at the first stage of evolution

If one fish that moved out of the water onto dry land couldn't survive for longer than a minute or two, then any of the other fish that did so would also die within a few minutes. Even if fish kept making the same attempts for millions of years, the end result would always be the same: All the fish would die. No organ as complex as the lung can emerge suddenly, by way of mutation. Yet a half-lung would serve no purpose at all. Both fossil findings and physiological studies totally disprove the
claim that fish are the ancestors of terrestrial animals. The huge anatomical and physiological differences between marine and
terrestrial animals cannot possibly be bridged by gradual
evolution based on chance. Among the most evident of these
differences:

So if d fish disposed its gills it will die, and if dey don't have a fully functioning kidney dey will die on land. So was it a rapid transformation or d gradual process like evolutionist claim?

Over to the wise men.

Go ask the scientists them when tell you na.

Na we tell you?

Abi we don get scientists for Nairaland?

adjoviomole:
We have heard tales of scientist saying animals evolved from water to become land animals, dey even used a fish the coelycanth as a missing link of this transition, only to be shamed wen d fish was caught alive without any changes

If the transition was true, den how will dey explain dis
The Kidney Barrier
Fish release harmful byproducts in their bodies
directly into the water. Terrestrial animals,
however, need kidneys. Therefore, any animal
that makes the transition from water to land
requires kidneys before making the change.
However, kidneys have a highly complex
structure. Moreover, a kidney has to be fully
formed and flawless if it is to function. Only
50%, or 70% or even 90% of a kidney will
serve no purpose. Since the theory of
evolution is predicated on the idea that organs
that are not used disappear over time, a kidney
that is 50% lacking will be eliminated from the
body at the first stage of evolution

If one fish that moved out of the water onto dry land couldn't survive for longer than a minute or two, then any of the other fish that did so would also die within a few minutes. Even if fish kept making the same attempts for millions of years, the end result would always be the same: All the fish would die. No organ as complex as the lung can emerge suddenly, by way of mutation. Yet a half-lung would serve no purpose at all. Both fossil findings and physiological studies totally disprove the
claim that fish are the ancestors of terrestrial animals. The huge anatomical and physiological differences between marine and
terrestrial animals cannot possibly be bridged by gradual
evolution based on chance. Among the most evident of these
differences:

So if d fish disposed its gills it will die, and if dey don't have a fully functioning kidney dey will die on land. So was it a rapid transformation or d gradual process like evolutionist claim?

Over to the wise men.

Its obvious brother.
Its only those who will willfully deny the truth that will believe the tales by moonlight of "fish evolution.
They only
use such tales to attempt to silence their conscience.

felixomor:


Its obvious brother.
Its only those who will willfully deny the truth that will believe the tales by moonlight of "fish evolution.
They only
use such tales to attempt to silence their conscience.

No mind dem, I wil keep giving dem crios headache.

I was even banned in d religion section for some days without doing anything o.

Demigods666:
Go ask the scientists them when tell you na.

Na we tell you?

Abi we don get scientists for Nairaland?

Yes na dem plenty wella. The so called wise men *atheist*

I see your back with your useless posts again. Go and read kwanu

Lennycool:
I see your back with your useless posts again. Go and read kwanu

His post clearly shows that he has actually read up on it before asking your likes the question he just did.

adjoviomole:
The Kidney Barrier Fish release harmful byproducts in their bodies directly into the water. Terrestrial animals, however, need kidneys. Therefore, any animal that makes the transition from water to land requires kidneys before making the change.

Actually, lots of fish have kidneys: http://kidneys-are-us.weebly.com/fish.html

Seun:
Actuslly, lots of fish have kidneys: http://kidneys-are-us.weebly.com/fish.html

Since lots of "other" fish have kidneys why then did evolutionists try to use the coelycanth as the missing evolution link only for the fish to appear years later and by itself said....Abeg o no be me o...I no waka comot from water enter land o...

Can you answer this?

The OP has no clue on what evolution is, but copy and paste irrelevant articles without even reading or understanding it and then tries to use it to discredit evolution to promote his creation doctrine.
Where did you get the stupid idea that coalecanth is the missing link between fish and land animals? Please Google and read up on the mudskipper.
Where will you place amphibians?