If you believe that 1 celled organism turned into everything?

Second question first --- there are several species of tropic fish who do walk (out of water) and can actually process the oxygen in the atmosphere. They must remain near water so their "skin" does not dry out.

The basic premise behind evolution is change in biological entities.

The question you are asking is one area where there is no direct evidence that a simple organism has actually changed into a more complex organism. That does not preclude the theories that state that such a thing is probable, it is simply one of those areas where no record exists (fossil or otherwise) that provides the evidence of such happening.

And the lack of evidence does not invalidate all the evidence that change _does_ take place in biological entities.

There is no _single_ theory of evolution, but several. Each has specific conditions under which the stated theory _is_ valid and can be validated by further scientific testing.

One of the mistakes critics (okay, people who believe that evolution is a lie) make is that they fail to recognize the many ways that biological entities go through changes that result in new varieties of plants and animals. Many of those ways are very well documented and come as close to being fact as one can in the various fields of science.

There is a fish known as a "coelacanth".

Because this fish had fins at the end of arm-like structures, this was thought to be a missing link between fish and land animals. These structures were thought to be the beginnings of the growth of legs.

The fossil of this fish was first discovered in 1839. For almost 100 years, evolutionists taught that this fish had been extinct for more than 70 million years. Science News declared that coelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago”.

But in 1939, a living specimen was caught off of the shore of South Africa. Since then, more than 200 others have been sighted or caught.

These living specimens that were found matched the fossils. So these fish had NOT been extinct for millions of years and since the fish were the same as the fossils, they had not evolved. If the fossils were 70+ million years old as reported, these fish have shown no significant evolution in 70 million years!

There is, however, a fish that is alive today that can "walk" (more like wiggles) across dry land. This is the "walking catfish".

These fish, however, produce walking catfish when they reproduce - nothing else. They have never shown any evidence that they either evolved from or into anything else.

I believe if the walking catfish survives for millions of years, the fish that would be alive then would be essentially the same as the ones that are alive now. There would be very little, if any, change!

Except viruses.

They pretty much prove that life, rudimentary life, doesn't require a living cell to exist, not even a single one...

...The question was - ah, no.

No, you don't.

Amphibians posses rather simplistic lungs and limbs, but they are nevertheless able to live in humid terrestrial habitats, though their embryonic development remains tied to the water habitats - they're transitional.

As close to walking fish as we get!

To be fair, fish that go in land and water aren't technically called fish anymore.

Biased much?

Actually, if you will check some very ordinary zoology books you will find that there is one species of fish that can walk.

It probably wasn't 1 of it. There were probably thousands of it, but it was just 1 type at the beginning.

... So a zero celled organism intelligently designed the universe?

no, organisms cannot change into other organisms. thats not how evolution works.

their were ancestral species which had qualities of both terrestrial and oceanic animals, yes.

Well that is what the Hair-brained Evolutionists would want us to believe!

Yes (to your first Q)

Childish attempt to disprove evolution

lulz

Peace