Polypterus: Teaching a fish to walk?
Bichirs and a giant leap of evolutionary faith
Popular with aquarists, bichirs are a family of African fish [Polypteridae] able to breathe through lungs and to spend time out of water as do several other species of fish, notably lungfish and mudskippers. A study published in Nature describes observations of walking in captive-bred bichirs (Polypterus senegalus) that were raised to live wholly out of water, although in damp conditions.1
Of course, the fish would not naturally choose this lifestyle. However, after several months, the researchers could see that their movements were a little less awkward than those raised in water. The ‘stress’ of the environment (during eight months) had even led to very slight changes in the muscles and bones supporting the pectoral fins—termed ‘developmental plasticity’—making them more robust to support the body out of water.
Mixing facts with fiction
Quick to capitalize on yet another opportunity to promote fish as our ancestors, Nature released a YouTube video of the researchers’ land-raised bichirs ‘walking’: “The land-lovers lifted their heads higher, planted their fins more efficiently, and slipped less often than their aquatic associates.”2 This is not nearly as impressive as it sounds, as viewers can easily verify,3 but the bait-and-switch4 trap is now set for the unwary consumer of this propaganda piece. Having baited viewers with the demonstration of small changes, the switch is made to fish-to-philosopher evolution; they claim that the observed plasticity helped make possible the “major evolutionary step as our ancestors crawl[ed] out of the seas and onto land. … It might not look elegant, but don’t be deceived. After all, one small flappy step of our fishy ancestors may have led to the giant leaps of mankind!”2
Leap of faith
Regular readers of Creation will be familiar with other examples of ‘walking fish’. Claimed by evolutionists to cause problems for belief in biblical creation, axolotls,5 handfish,6 and mudskippers7 are actually powerful testimony to the Creator’s superlative design (Romans 1:20). In the case of all these fish, bichirs included, the facts are not problematic, rather the storytelling that is tacked onto them. Genesis does not teach that God created species fixed and immutable, rather the fixity of kinds (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).
Clearly, creatures were designed by God with the capacity to vary, and the sort of change observed in these bichirs is consistent with this. It seems to be an ecophenotypic (environmentally induced) change with no alteration of the DNA code. We see this in the muscles and bones of a body-builder that are strengthened with weight-training.8 Similarly, the pectoral anatomy of these bichirs has become more robust to better bear their weight on land—they pull their fins together more than those raised in water, so holding their heads a little higher. And just as the effects of bodybuilding are not passed on to one’s children, there is no evidence that the observed subtle flexibility in bichir behaviour and pectoral girdle anatomy is heritable, as evolution requires;9 nor yet that it is heading in the direction of the way land animals walk, with a bony connection between limbs and backbone.
The Apostle Paul taught that fish and various other animals are different in ‘kind’ from one another, and from human beings (1 Corinthians 15:39), agreeing with the teaching of Genesis 1. To parody the concluding remarks of the video mentioned earlier, the idea of fish-o-pod evolution really is one of the “giant leaps [of faith] of mankind”; Don’t be deceived.
References and notes
- Standen, E.N., Du, T.Y. & Larsson, H.C.E., Developmental plasticity and the origin of tetrapods, Nature 513:54–58, 4 September 2014. Return to text.
- Fish out of water, Nature videos, youtube.com, 27 August 2014. Return to text.
- Without doubt, as the researchers acknowledge, mudskippers (fish inhabiting mangrove swamps) are the masters of fishy locomotion on land. Return to text.
- See Walker, T., Don’t fall for the bait and switch. Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. Creation 29(4):38–39, 2007; creation.com/baitandswitch. Return to text.
- Dykes, J., The Axolotl: The fish that walks? Creation 27(4):21–23, September 2005; creation.com/axolotl. Return to text.
- May, K., Rare Australian fish has fins like hands, Creation 28(3):28–29, June 2006; creation.com/handfish. Return to text.
- Bell, P., Mudskippers—marvels of the mud-flats! Creation 34(2):48–50, April 2012; creation.com/mudskipper. Return to text.
- Another example is the archers of the powerful medieval English longbow, who won many battles. They trained in archery from childhood so they could draw bows that few modern archers could manage, and their skeletons show enlarged left arms, and bone spurs on the left shoulder and wrist and right fingers, those used most to bend the bow. Return to text.
- In the unlikely event that this environmentally induced change turns out to be inheritable, it would be an example of epigenetics. But this involves the switching on/off of existing genes, not the creation of new genes. See White, D., The genetic puppeteer, Creation 30(2):42–44, March 2008; creation.com/the-genetic-puppeteer. Return to text.
It sounds like Lamarckism all over again.
Do these fish ever breed on land, or does that only happen in water. They would need to breed on land to be successful, wouldn't they?
And what would they have eaten when on land - or could they have lived on whatever is said to have been growing back 'then'? If they were the first land creatures, they would have only had vegetation to live on, if there was any.
How would their young feed?
It never ceases to amaze me what evolutionists are willing to try and make us believe. Using the same logic as seen in this "walking" lungfish study, if I repetitively trained at the gym, given many millions or billions of years, I could become as strong as the Hulk or Mr. Incredible.
I wonder if you would care to comment on the recent BBC article regarding "Pederpes".
I realise the link will be deleted, but I don't know how to send it to you otherwise!!!
here it is: [link deleted per feedback rules]
Thanks, love what you guys do.
The fossil Pederpes is briefly mentioned in this paper as an one of several 'early tetrapods' that allegedly document the fish-to-amphibian evolutionary transition. In keeping with this view, the BBC article you cited (from 5 December 2016) is titled 'Scottish fossils tell story of first life on land'. This comment section is not the place to properly discuss the article's claims so the following should be treated as some passing observations, not exhaustive comment.
Those accustomed to reading between the lines of what popular science articles report of the findings of palaeontologists know to separate the raw facts (what was actually found) from the interpretations of the fossil (which are not facts at all but frequently wild speculation). So here, fossils found at Burnmouth (just beyond the northern tip of England, on Scotland's east coast) are hailed as "lifting the lid on a key part of the evolutionary story of life on land" by well-known researcher in this field, Cambridge University's Jennifer Clack (searching creation.com on her name, or 'Jenny Clack' will turn up many articles). Nick Fraser (National Museums of Scotland) goes further: "Without this step of vertebrates ... coming to land, we wouldn't be here ..." Those are tall claims indeed! The fossils, fascinating though they may be, tell us nothing of the sort; it's the world-view of the scientists that constrains their interpretations and the word 'story' in the BBC's article title is certainly apt.
So basically speaking, when they find walking fish in the fossil record, like Tiktaalik, they say it supports evolution, but when fish like that are still alive today, it still supports evolution! Evolutionary story-telling is so flexible, it can adapt to pretty much anything we find, but it´s just story telling, nothing more!