List Of Prophetic Statements Against Evolution From Josephsmithforum.org

[bcuzbcuz]

Easy fix: Get the best teachers available to teach what evolution is and what it involves.

Still won't mean BYU or the Church endorses evolution as the truth, though.

Best teachers be damned, if they don't believe it, they can't teach it.

It'd be like getting Jehovah Witnesses to teach the missionary lessons. They're knocking on the doors anyway, so get them to slip in a little Joseph Smith while they're at it. And leave a BofM along with the Watchtower..

[thesometimesaint]

Best teachers be damned, if they don't believe it, they can't teach it.

It'd be like getting Jehovah Witnesses to teach the missionary lessons. They're knocking on the doors anyway, so get them to slip in a little Joseph Smith while they're at it. And leave a BofM along with the Watchtower..

 

[Ahab]

No problem. However as to the validity of Evolution the science is in. May God come back soon in these latter days and tell us exactly how he did it.

Why do you think you must wait until he comes back down here to tell you how he did it? Can't you figure it out by using science and the revelations he will give you and has already given you to help you know for sure? Do you at least have the different possibilities figured out so that it will just be his confirmation of the real possibilities, reduced down to which is most likely?

I have, and I've already told you what he has told me and helped me to believe about how he did it, and which possibility is the most likely out of all of the most likely options. Do you imagine that you will be surprised when he tells you how he did it? I'm thinking I'll just be saying something like "Yeah I was pretty sure I had understood what you told me about what you did and how you did it, but I was kinda hoping you would tell me where the planets are where you got those things from, and which other planets have all of these kinds of critters on them?"

[Ahab]

Best teachers be damned, if they don't believe it, they can't teach it.

It'd be like getting Jehovah Witnesses to teach the missionary lessons. They're knocking on the doors anyway, so get them to slip in a little Joseph Smith while they're at it. And leave a BofM along with the Watchtower..

Apparently you've never seen or haven't realized you've seen people who give correct information about sonething they don't believe in. I know everyone has their own preferred beliefs but not everyone skews information about things they don't believe in.

I understand at least the basic general idea of what the theory of evolution is and what it involves and I'm open to learning even more about it, and I can and often do share what I know about the idea without distorting what those who believe it would say, themselves, other than to add that as far as I know it is not true, on the macro level.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Ahab

[Nemesis]

No, I don't like Macro-Evolution, I like ID creationism, that is what I believed when I was a child.

I don't like Macro-Evolution, but the scientific evidences prove it, and I can't do nothing about that.

 

You don't like Macro-Evolution, you are close minded, and you will not study the evidence in the scientific literature. Maybe you study Blogs or Evangelical websites, but you obviously have not read a university Biology textbook.

 

1 Corinthians 13:11

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"

Please read board guidelines found at the bottom of the page.

Mocking each others' beliefs

Judging others

Personal attacks. You may dispute a member's opinion, but you may not label them for having that opinion.

[Grudunza]

Important point in the link is that the pre-existence, spirit of man (spirit beings who were children of God prior to creation of the earth) completely refute the concept of the origin of mankind through evolution.

If we are and were spirit beings put into physical bodies, how does that refute evolution? Physical bodies were provided for us, quite brilliantly through evolution. My body is no less sacred to me for having been part of that process. And this version of my body is going back to the earth to be repurposed, anyway, so why should I be so precious about where the materials for it came from and how they came together?

Should we assume that all that is observable and learnable about our planet is false and a trick? Evolution certainly appears, by all rational observance and discovery and testing, to be the truth of how existence of species grew and developed on Earth. Our theology is better suited to embrace and adapt with the truth of acquired knowledge, whatever that may be, than many others. The acquired knowledge we have (which we are taught to seek after) overwhelmingly points to evolution as being valid. At this point, I feel we are required to adapt our understanding of our theology to that, not the other way around. Our theology doesn't need to change, and it's not invalidated. Our understanding of it changes, and that's a good thing. We need to remain teachable. There could be important things about this process that we may need to know and use in the world-building of the eternities. I think it's a brilliant way for worlds to be populated with variety and resilience and prioritization and adaptation. Evolution isn't the boogeyman, though that's how many view it, and with the same kind of irrational fear for what they think it must represent, which is often a phantom or false representation. It just is, so we can either accept it or pretend somehow it's not real, which increasingly becomes silly.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Grudunza

[ERayR]

If we are and were spirit beings put into physical bodies, how does that refute evolution? Physical bodies were provided for us, quite brilliantly through evolution. My body is no less sacred to me for having been part of that process. And this version of my body is going back to the earth to be repurposed, anyway, so why should I be so precious about where the materials for it came from and how they came together?

Should we assume that all that is observable and learnable about our planet is false and a trick? Evolution certainly appears, by all rational observance and discovery and testing, to be the truth of how existence of species grew and developed on Earth. Our theology is better suited to embrace and adapt with the truth of acquired knowledge, whatever that may be, than many others. The acquired knowledge we have (which we are taught to seek after) overwhelmingly points to evolution as being valid. At this point, I feel we are required to adapt our understanding of our theology to that, not the other way around. Our theology doesn't need to change, and it's not invalidated. Our understanding of it changes, and that's a good thing. We need to remain teachable. There could be important things about this process that we may need to know and use in the world-building of the eternities. I think it's a brilliant way for worlds to be populated with variety and resilience and prioritization and adaptation. Evolution isn't the boogeyman, though that's how many view it, and with the same kind of irrational fear for what they think it must represent, which is often a phantom or false representation. It just is, so we can either accept it or pretend somehow it's not real, which increasingly becomes silly.

 

Although, to me, it savages the doctrine of the fall and atonement that is not the main reason I reject macro-evolution.  There are just too many unexplained anomalies that are ignored.  Start with a very old book by Ivan T. Sanderson called "Things".  When you have answered those do a Google search and start on those.  In a few years when you have gotten through the majority of them come on back and we can have this discussion again.  Well maybe not, by the time you get through with them I will probably be where I have the answers.  If you take the challenge I hope you enjoy the trip as much as I have. A viable premise should seek answers to these questions, not ignore or ridicule them.

 

Edited to add:

One should not edit the fact pattern to fit a preconceived solution but rather one adjusts the solution to cover the fact pattern.

Edited June 10, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

Although, to me, it savages the doctrine of the fall and atonement that is not the main reason I reject macro-evolution.  There are just too many unexplained anomalies that are ignored.  Start with a very old book by Ivan T. Sanderson called "Things".  .

 

Ivan T. Sanderson was a Biologist, but he died in 1973. 

 

"Start with a very old book by Ivan T. Sanderson called "Things""

That is not a good idea, his 1969 book is very out of date. 

 

Ivan was also a cryptozoologist. 

[thesometimesaint]

Why do you think you must wait until he comes back down here to tell you how he did it? Can't you figure it out by using science and the revelations he will give you and has already given you to help you know for sure? Do you at least have the different possibilities figured out so that it will just be his confirmation of the real possibilities, reduced down to which is most likely?

I have, and I've already told you what he has told me and helped me to believe about how he did it, and which possibility is the most likely out of all of the most likely options. Do you imagine that you will be surprised when he tells you how he did it? I'm thinking I'll just be saying something like "Yeah I was pretty sure I had understood what you told me about what you did and how you did it, but I was kinda hoping you would tell me where the planets are where you got those things from, and which other planets have all of these kinds of critters on them?"

 

If I want to know how someone does something the best person to ask is that person. Why is where my training and expertise comes in. Which is in child and adolescent pyschology. That of course spills over into adult psychology as well. But enough of my credentials.

 

I accept science with all of its limitations as the best explanation for what we see. IE; I look at our sun and see a huge hot ball of hydrogen gas fusing to produce helium. Some saw it as a wood fire being carried across the sky by God riding in a chariot. Of course both maybe wrong, but it is not likely that the latter is correct. The former is most likely the correct in that science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science.

 

I've told you what he has told me. That is where the problem comes in. We can't hold opposite opinions on what God has told us and both still be right. So we need an outside authority to resolve the issue. From my POV to deffer to religion leads to too many internal contradictions to be of much use in how God did it. I'm fine with why.

 

Now to the subject of a Global Flood it is entirely possible for a omniscient omnipotent God to have done it 4000 years ago or even last Thursday and changed all the physical evidence, and changed all our memories, of it to make it look like it did. That to me would make God the ultimate deceiver, and I don't believe he is.

 

I'm content with whatever God tells me. Mortal men not so much. If he says there were plants, and animals living on this earth before there was our sun. That's fine with me, but it does open all manner of questions that I want answers to. I fully expect we'll have plenty of long conversations whether he comes to see me, or I go to see him.

 

I don't believe life came here from other planets. Everything that is needed for it, including the time to do it, is right here. As to life on other planets, around other suns, sure there is a tremendous possibility for it, just no evidence of it yet.

[williamsmith]

We should be clear that the "evolution" the Church has always been against is that man evolved from Apes.

That man wasn't always man.  The Church still is against this belief.  "After it's kind" is the evolution the church believes.

 

This is why the church was so against evolution in the past.

[thesometimesaint]

We should be clear that the "evolution" the Church has always been against is that man evolved from Apes.

That man wasn't always man.  The Church still is against this belief.  "After it's kind" is the evolution the church believes.

 

This is why the church was so against evolution in the past.

 

The science of Evolution doesn't claim that man evolved from Apes. That man wasn't always man. Some members of the Church have needlessly created a straw-man(dust man) argument.

[Ahab]

The science of Evolution doesn't claim that man evolved from Apes. That man wasn't always man. Some members of the Church have needlessly created a straw-man(dust man) argument.

Well at least you've helped to straighten me out on that idea. I once thought about it or phrased it that way too, but now I better understand the theory involved in macro evolution. But you still don't seem to see the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is all about, as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming another species of that same kind of being. A species of tree becoming another species of tree, for example, where both the beginning and end result are the same kind of living being.

Macro evolution is on a completely different scale, though, with the theory proposing, again as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming a species of a totally different kind of living being. A species of tree becoming a species of ape or even one of us, of mankind.

I know you would say it a bit differently because you don't know how to define the word kind, and as someone who accepts macro evolution you consider all living beings to be of the same kind, but I think it would be fair to say I do understand the theory. I just don't accept it as truth, speaking especially about macro evolution.

It would mean that all forms of life, including God, evolved from the most basic form of life.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Double post deleted.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Well at least you've helped to straighten me out on that idea. I once thought about it or phrased it that way too, but now I better understand the theory involved in macro evolution. But you still don't seem to see the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is all about, as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming another species of that same kind of being. A species of tree becoming another species of tree, for example, where both the beginning and end result are the same kind of living being.

Macro evolution is on a completely different scale, though, with the theory proposing, again as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming a species of a totally different kind of living being. A species of tree becoming a species of ape or even one of us, of mankind.

I know you would say it a bit diffetently because you don't know how to define the word kind, and as someone who accepts macro evolution you consider all living beings to be of the same kind, but I think it would be fair to say I do understand the theory. I just don't accept it, speaking especially about macro evolution.

It would mean that all forms of life, including God, evolved from the most basic form of life.

 

Well at least you've helped to straighten me out on that idea. I once thought about it or phrased it that way too, but now I better understand the theory involved in macro evolution. But you still don't seem to see the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is all about, as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming another species of that same kind of being. A species of tree becoming another species of tree, for example, where both the beginning and end result are the same kind of living being.

Macro evolution is on a completely different scale, though, with the theory proposing, again as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming a species of a totally different kind of living being. A species of tree becoming a species of ape or even one of us, of mankind.

I know you would say it a bit diffetently because you don't know how to define the word kind, and as someone who accepts macro evolution you consider all living beings to be of the same kind, but I think it would be fair to say I do understand the theory. I just don't accept it, speaking especially about macro evolution.

It would mean that all forms of life, including God, evolved from the most basic form of life.

 

There is no difference in micro and macro-evolution at the DNA level. Micro-evolution is simply the varies differences that accumulate that don't prevent a population from interbreeding with its parent generation. Macro-evolution is simply when a population can no longer interbreed with its parent generation.

 

There is no scientifically valid definition of "kind" in biology. There are just species. Some can interbreed with their parent species and some can not.

 

Such an observance of a tree, or ape, give birth to a human, would disprove the Theory of Evolution. What the Theory of Evolution actually says is that all life is connected by Common Descent. IE; That apes and man have a common ancestor that was neither ape nor man. Witnessed by the fact that we share some 97% of our DNA with the great apes. We don't know exactly when plants and animals diverged from a Common Ancestor but it does appear to be early on in the   Precambrian Epoch.

 

You are entitled to believe anything you want. However the real world has a nasty habit of biting some believers on the butt. IE; Joseph Fielding Smith didn't believe man would ever be in space or on the moon. Scientists had other ideas. Or as more elegantly put by someone else

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

― Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Ahab]

Let's talk some more about the common descent idea you have. What was the common ancestor of all living beings like, to begin with?

You say that a tree becoming an ape or man would disprove evolution, but yet they all have a common ancestor. So what was the tree or ape or man before it became a tree or ape or man? What would that common ancestor have looked like?

I'm trying to imagine IT, whatever IT was, and I'm imagining a strand of DNA laying on a table with the left side of IT as IT was before IT evolved and as I look to the right side of the strand I see what IT has evolved into, with various segments in between looking a heck of a lot like all of the living beings we know of. IT has a segment of IT's DNA that looks like the DNA strand of a tree, and another like that of an ape and another like that of a man.

Is that something like what you imagine?

Edited June 10, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Let's talk some more about the common descent idea you have. What was the common ancestor of all living beings like, to begin with?

You say that a tree becoming an ape or man would disprove evolution, but yet they all have a common ancestor. So what was the tree or ape or man before it became a tree or ape or man? What would that common ancestor have looked like?

I'm trying to imagine IT, whatever IT was, and I'm imagining a strand of DNA laying on a table with the left side of IT as IT was before IT evolved and as I look to the right side of the strand I see what IT has evolved into, with various segments in between looking a heck of a lot like all of the living beings we know of. IT has s segment

 

We don't know yet.

 

When is a tree, or an ape, or a man not respectively a tree, an ape, or a man is an oxymoronic question.

 

Looks have little to do with evolution. It is the inability to interbreed with the parent generation that makes speciation.

SEE

Edited June 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

We don't know yet.

When is a tree, or an ape, or a man not respectively a tree, an ape, or a man is an oxymoronic question.

Looks have little to do with evolution. It is the inability to interbreed with the parent generation that makes speciation.

SEE

Until you figure that out you won't have very much to offer in the way of proof, then. Still looks to me like an incorrect interpretation of the supposed evidence.

[ERayR]

Until you figure that out you won't have very much to offer in the way of proof, then. Still looks to me like an incorrect interpretation of the supposed evidence.

 

Add to that all the anomalies that is not even considered because it doesn't fit with certain conclusions and would blemish the pretty picture it leaves room for considerable doubt.

[cinepro]

“When one understands that the author to whom I allude is an exponent for the theory of organic evolution, his motive in disparaging President Joseph Fielding Smith becomes apparent. To hold to a private opinion on such matters is one thing, but when one undertakes to publish his views to discredit the work of a prophet, it is a very serious matter. It is also apparent to all who have the Spirit of God in them that Joseph Fielding Smith’s writings will stand the test of time.” ³³

 

Ezra Taft Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, p. 26

 

Ironically, this quote from President Benson hasn't stood the test of time.

[bcuzbcuz]

Well at least you've helped to straighten me out on that idea. I once thought about it or phrased it that way too, but now I better understand the theory involved in macro evolution. But you still don't seem to see the difference between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution is all about, as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming another species of that same kind of being. A species of tree becoming another species of tree, for example, where both the beginning and end result are the same kind of living being.

Macro evolution is on a completely different scale, though, with the theory proposing, again as I would phrase it, one species of a certain kind of living being becoming a species of a totally different kind of living being. A species of tree becoming a species of ape or even one of us, of mankind.

I know you would say it a bit differently because you don't know how to define the word kind, and as someone who accepts macro evolution you consider all living beings to be of the same kind, but I think it would be fair to say I do understand the theory. I just don't accept it as truth, speaking especially about macro evolution.

It would mean that all forms of life, including God, evolved from the most basic form of life.

I've read your posts and have seen both yours and other similar posts trying to define the difference, as you perceive it, between micro- and macro-evolution. First of all, there is no difference. What many try, hopelessly, to draw a line between the two, is like trying to draw a distinct line between white, gray and black.

The whole argument, of differentiating between micro and macro evolution, didn't exist until creationist needed to do some intellectual gymnastics of accepting the evolution that could be observed, during a relatively short period of time, and still reject the evolution that occurred over a long time, which placed their religious opinions in jepardy.

The true perspective of evolution isn't available from daily observations. It'd be like me trying to define the day I went bald. When I think of my hair from my youth, my memory says I look the same today. Of course, the mirror tells me otherwise. But somewhere between when I was 20 and my hairline of today, as I approach 70, I have lost hair from a temporal recession, then a gradually enlargened area of the crown or vertex. My hair has become thinner and I have it more sparsely spaced until now the connecting bridge of hair between my brow and vertex has almost disappeared. No matter how I brush or get my hair clipped, I'm bald.

But when did I become bald? My life isn't all that eventful. I should remember such a momentus happening.

Somewhere between fishes and fishes with legs (I can send a picture of a mudskipper my wife took in Thailand, if you wish) and salamanders to land lizards, changes have taken place. The fossil record confirms it. But like my baldness, no one can pinpoiint the day or time it happened. Each of those changes were multiple "microevolutionary steps" all combined into an evolutionary jump. The theory says mankind will find more and more missing gaps in the picture as time goes on. So far, that is exactly what has happened. That's what makes the theory of evolution believable.

[Tiki]

I've read your posts and have seen both yours and other similar posts trying to define the difference, as you perceive it, between micro- and macro-evolution. First of all, there is no difference. What many try, hopelessly, to draw a line between the two, is like trying to draw a distinct line between white, gray and black.

The whole argument, of differentiating between micro and macro evolution, didn't exist until creationist needed to do some intellectual gymnastics of accepting the evolution that could be observed, during a relatively short period of time, and still reject the evolution that occurred over a long time, which placed their religious opinions in jepardy.

The true perspective of evolution isn't available from daily observations. It'd be like me trying to define the day I went bald. When I think of my hair from my youth, my memory says I look the same today. Of course, the mirror tells me otherwise. But somewhere between when I was 20 and my hairline of today, as I approach 70, I have lost hair from a temporal recession, then a gradually enlargened area of the crown or vertex. My hair has become thinner and I have it more sparsely spaced until now the connecting bridge of hair between my brow and vertex has almost disappeared. No matter how I brush or get my hair clipped, I'm bald.

But when did I become bald? My life isn't all that eventful. I should remember such a momentus happening.

Somewhere between fishes and fishes with legs (I can send a picture of a mudskipper my wife took in Thailand, if you wish) and salamanders to land lizards, changes have taken place. The fossil record confirms it. But like my baldness, no one can pinpoiint the day or time it happened. Each of those changes were multiple "microevolutionary steps" all combined into an evolutionary jump. The theory says mankind will find more and more missing gaps in the picture as time goes on. So far, that is exactly what has happened. That's what makes the theory of evolution believable.

Sorry, but most muskippers were born bald. They didn't have to evolve that way.

But actually, as you claim, the fossil record does not confirm the theory of evolution. Darwin admitted to this in his Origin of Species and is which why "the missing link" concept has come about.

The fossil and the living record indicate that species are very distinct.

Darwin claimed his theory shoud predict chaos - to paraphrase him - among all living things. He wondered why "transitional species" did not exist in both the living and fossil records.

Then along came Dr. Stephen Jay Gould modifying Darwin's Theory with the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium:"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml

It's Evolution 101 at Berkley

"Evolution appears to happen in sharp jumps associated with speciation events."

Say what? Why does evolution appear to happen in sharp jumps? Because the fossil record shows distinct species, not transitional.

Now the Theory of Evolution fits the fossil record! No need to throw out the original theory, just change the Theory!

Species evolved rapidly. They weren't created.

Talk about Hypocrisy 101!

Yes, the many comments that the Prophets of The Lord don't know what they are talking about, that they're inconsistent, blah blah, yet the same are willing to believe in the rapidly changing - inconsistent Theory of Evolution - with the many evolving "scientific" opinions of "scientists" who support the Evolving Theory of Evolution.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Yes, the many comments that the Prophets of The Lord don't know what they are talking about, that they're inconsistent, blah blah, yet the same are willing to believe in the rapidly changing - inconsistent Theory of Evolution - with the many evolving "scientific" opinions of "scientists" who support the Evolving Theory of Evolution.

 

If there are no evidences that prove Evolution, why do Mormon scientists believe it? 

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

Do you even know what sophistry is?

 

A Teleological argument is an argument from design. "It looks complex. So God must have done it" That argument is premised on several unsupported assumptions. That the object is so complex that no one will ever understand it. That God exists. That your God is the only God. That just your idea's about your God are the only accurate ones.

 

I have absolutely no problem with the Spiritual side. Evolution doesn't concern itself with spiritual entities and beings.

 

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

Galileo

Such a weak argument that evolutionists use to refute intelligent design...

Intelligent design is a theory based upon direct observation and careful analysis of the data. The evidence clearly shows that complex features in living things is not the result of chance mutations. Evolution theory demands that there is no intelligent cause or design that drives the mechanism of new intelligent information. But, there is no evidence whatsoever that chance randomness works a s a program that encodes for new intelligence. Evolutionists have no evidence for this phenomenon- its all just conjecture on their part.

[bcuzbcuz]

Sorry, but most muskippers were born bald. They didn't have to evolve that way.

But actually, as you claim, the fossil record does not confirm the theory of evolution. Darwin admitted to this in his Origin of Species and is which why "the missing link" concept has come about.

The fossil and the living record indicate that species are very distinct.

Darwin claimed his theory shoud predict chaos - to paraphrase him - among all living things. He wondered why "transitional species" did not exist in both the living and fossil records.

Then along came Dr. Stephen Jay Gould modifying Darwin's Theory with the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium:"http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml

It's Evolution 101 at Berkley

"Evolution appears to happen in sharp jumps associated with speciation events."

Say what? Why does evolution appear to happen in sharp jumps? Because the fossil record shows distinct species, not transitional.

Now the Theory of Evolution fits the fossil record! No need to throw out the original theory, just change the Theory!

Species evolved rapidly. They weren't created.

Talk about Hypocrisy 101!

Yes, the many comments that the Prophets of The Lord don't know what they are talking about, that they're inconsistent, blah blah, yet the same are willing to believe in the rapidly changing - inconsistent Theory of Evolution - with the many evolving "scientific" opinions of "scientists" who support the Evolving Theory of Evolution.

When my wife and I were in Thailand, we photoraphed a couple hundred diiferent fish. Rainbow coloured wrasse that took nips at my scabs from an earlier injurry, to almost luminescent blue parrot fish (so named because of their parrot like mouths that crunch on corrals) But the wierdest fish of all was the mudskipper. It moves under water, breathing through its gills,propelling themselves by walking on the seafloor with their pectoral fins. They stay in shallow water, usually around mangrove tree roots. When the tide goes out, these fish move around the beach, using their pectoral fins as legs. Their top-mounted eyes squeeze water from special sacks of water, keeping their eyes and gills moisturized. One species has numerous blood vessels in their water sack that allow for oxygen uptake from the water, almost like primitive lungs.

Mudskippers ARE a missing link.

[thesometimesaint]

Until you figure that out you won't have very much to offer in the way of proof, then. Still looks to me like an incorrect interpretation of the supposed evidence.

 

When something is demonstrated in the lab and in nature. I don't know what else to say to you.