Is this the final proof that evolution is false?

I'm way too stoned to understand this

You've been touched by Imperfectionist

You haven't provided any "proof" that evolution is false, let alone the "final proof."

Fish don't have legs, genius -- no matter what their eyes can or can't do.

There *are* fish that can and do use their "fins" as "legs," but those aren't our ancestors either.

We share a common ancestor with fish. That common ancestor was neither fish nor human, but it did live in water. Some of that common ancestor's descendants evolved legs and became reptiles and mammals, some didn't and became fish.

Peace.

Now, lets see what the bible has about fish...

... Oh yes. Didnt a few fish feed many hundreds or thousands? You question the logic of those who believe evolution, but for you to not question if a book tells you that this was done, and you swallow that as fact, then you are either high as hell right now, or you like people reactions to these questions. Either way, Im cool with that.

What about the deep sea fish that have legs? Also why is being able to see a part of your body a requirement for evolution in your mind? You've never seen your forehead with your own two eyes, you've only seen a reflection of it.

This is a pretty good example of 18th Century Lamarkian evolutionary thinking - Lamarck believed that evolution had functioned to elongate giraffes' necks through their constant stretching of them to reach leaves high up in trees. Interesting stuff in the development of logic in Biology to to contextualize the history of the theory of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck

Dude... wtf? Of course fish don't have legs, that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all. And I can't see my stomach so does that mean god didn't intend for me to have a stomach? Your logic is not logical at all. If evolution is not true then how did all of the plants and animals on the planet form? Things don't just appear out of nowhere, it takes millions of years of development.

yea, I don't think its one that's gonna convince a whole lot of people to be honest. However, its no less convincing than the explainations of the theory of evolution, by far. Even totally aside from religion, the theory of evolution is not exactly one of science's most inductive theories. Its not inductive, like the Bible, which is so inductive, ignorant people can't even understand it, much less argue, what it is genuinely testifying of.

No. fish evolved like that because they can turn their bodies easily in the water. Land animals have legs because they need a means of propulsion. Think before you ask.

Trolling is bad.

look at the bones of a fish if you look carefully there are two small bones that stick out. they used to be legs. this can actually be seen better in whales, this showed they did use to have legs nad did once walk on land and now have evolved into creatures of the sea.

a snake also once had legs looking at their bones you can also see the two leg bones sticking it.

this shows they have evolved into what they are now ^_^

Then please explain why the chameleon lizard can use both eyes looking at two different directions at the same time.

Some humans are born with lazy eyes that act like the chameleon eyes.

Is that evolution or an ocular phenomenon?