Our resident expert believer did kindly take the time to explain how fish got lungs. Steven J. said, "It would have involved individuals who spent most of their time in the water and, on occasion, ventured briefly onto land (perhaps to seek food, perhaps to escape drying ponds and seek new bodies of water)."
So he believes it wasn’t one fish, but a group of "individuals" (what is commonly call a "population") with gills, that ventured up onto the land to look for food or water, gasped, and then went back to their pond that lacked food and water. They kept repeating that process for the time that was necessary for them to develop genes that produced an offspring that would evolve lungs, and the needed heart--that could deal with the new input of oxygen. This would have taken millions of years.
The key is to believe that all this happens because of "time." Frogs can turn into princes, with the magic kiss of time.
The theist is accused of a thoughtless "God-did-it." For the evolutionary atheist it was a matter of "Father-Time-did-it." He waved his wand, and made the impossible possible.
Of course, an evolutionist wouldn't express the process in such a trite way. For him, time just is. But it's the magic of time that makes lungs and hearts, something we don't know how to do--from nothing, at this point in time.
With all this, I have finally figured out where I stand on this theory. I have no belief in evolution. I have a non-belief in the theory and will I stay that way until someone provides me with real evidence, instead of all this childish conjecture.
One believer did say, "If you insist on 'God did it,' then the question is which God? How do you know? When did God do it? How do you know? How did God do it? How do you know? How can we test a supernatural claim? We can't. Case closed."
They are good questions (and they do have good answers), but the questioner made a one-word mistake as he concluded. He should have written mind closed rather than case closed.
