The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution

Vertical Thought Magazine ^ | June 2006 | Mario Seiglie

[DouglasKC]

The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution

This unusual fish uses a specialized system to blast insects out of the air. How could this evolve slowly over time when there is no survival advantage without the whole system working perfectly?

by Mario Seiglie

In Asia, Africa and Australia lives a remarkable creature, the archerfish, that shoots down its prey from the air above it with a burst of water. It uses its tongue and the top of its mouth to form a groove similar to a gun barrel. Then, by compressing its gills, it squirts water up to six feet with deadly accuracy—in spite of the distortion caused by seeing the target from below the surface of water.

What's so amazing about the archerfish's ability to shoot straight? When light passes between air and water, it is refracted, which causes a distortion. If an archerfish simply aimed at the object where it appeared to be from below the water, it could never hit its target! Yet scientists have found that archerfish are able to strike their target when sighting upwards at angles of 40 degrees!

More amazingly, marine researchers have discovered that these fish can hit their prey whether the amount of refraction is large or small. They have also found that the fishes' binocular vision allows them to see clearly at considerable distances above them, an ability other fish do not have.

An experiment

Here is an experiment. In a clear glass of water, hold a pencil at an angle halfway under the water and look at it from different positions. Notice how the pencil appears different below and above the water. That is the refraction of the light changing from the water to the air.

So how can the archerfish compensate for this distortion and know how to shoot at the right place?

Evolutionists don't know

Evolutionists still don't know how the archerfish got its amazing abilities. They can only wonder! Viewed through the distortion of evolution, they cannot explain how the archerfish gradually learned to not aim where its eyes see but to aim instead at a different spot where the target actually is.

Without its binocular vision, it could not see the object with such precision, and without the special shape of the upper mouth and a specialized tongue, it could not make the groove it needs to shoot the concentrated jet of water. Many factors have to appear together—and be perfectly formed—for this shooting mechanism to work. This, of course, goes totally against Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, which is based on a gradual, step-by-step process.

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (1859, p. 171).

The archerfish offers precisely such an example, since several complex systems must all appear at the same time, perfectly and not gradually formed—binocular vision, a specialized mouth and tongue, specialized gills to compress and expel water and an aiming system based in the brain and not in the eyes. If any of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not hit the target and no survival advantage is created.

Shooting down Darwin's theory

When you get down to the facts, the archerfish with one squirt of its gills shoots down Charles Darwin's entire theory of evolution—and that by Darwin's own admission!

So evolution doesn't have the answer to this mystery. But the Bible does. Genesis 1:20-21 says that God created all the creatures that live in the water. He created a great variety of perfectly formed fish, including the archerfish with all its special features, such as binocular vision, other specialized organs and a built-in ability to compensate for the distortion of the water. VT

[Celtjew Libertarian]

positing a way that evolutionism could do something still doesnt work as you need need to prove that 'posit(s)' with experimentation, observation and repeatability.....and that isnt going to happen......

Not in this case. All the argument is, is that the theory of evolution cannot account for the archerfish. I posited a way that it could.

That the theory of evolution could account for it is not proof that evolution did do it. However, it contradicts the statement that the theory of evolution could not have done it.

Even if the theory of evolution is wrong and the universe was created by God in six, 24-hour days, the theory can still account for the development of the archerfish.

[phantomworker]

Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (1859, p. 171).

God most certainly created this fish, and the mechanism he used was "numerous, successive, slight modifications".

[DouglasKC]

Young archerfish start shooting when about 2.5 cm long, but are inaccurate at first and must learn from experience. Or die trying... a perfect example of natural selection.

What tells them that they can shoot water out of their mouth at insects above the surface of the water?

[Central Scrutiniser]

I've kept the fish in my tank when I had one. Fascinating, but not the superfish the article makes of them. They will shoot water at any dark spot they will see on the aquarium top.

As for their abilities, they came via evolution, those fish that could shoot had an advantage and they passed it on.

But to say that the archerfish disproves evolution? Nonsense! This article has no depth to it, no way of explaining its premise, and no proof offered other than calling it some kind of miracle.

[JusPasenThru]

I'm pretty convinced about evolution. After all, we're seeing lots of species mutate these days due to intense environmental pressure. For example, squirrels now mate three weeks early because of global warming. That proves they've become a new species. There is also a North American field mouse who, if it lives in the eastern half of the US, won't mate with the ones in the western half of the US. There you go. More new species, just like Darwin predicted. I guess the fruit fly mutants count, even though it's not really natural selection because Man is the one sorting them out. But it's close enough, isn't it? Only a moron wouldn't believe those proofs, right?

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

...or evolution has built in the compensation.

Maybe there is a spotter fish just out of view calling out windage, distance and elevation to the archer fish?

/

[Redcloak]

The problem is the combination of "hardware" and "software". The groove in the fish's mouth is of little use without the instinct to spit water at insects sitting just above the surface. On the other hand, to instinct to spit water doesn't get a fish a meal if the water doesn't have the groove to guide it. Making things worse, I can't imagine a half-formed groove, or half-coded instinct to spit being of any use at all; even if the other component is in place. Getting hardware and software to evolve in tandem seems highly improbable.

(And on an aside, the refraction problem is the easy one to solve; evolve a downward tipped groove. Either that or the ability to compensate is a learned behavior. Assuming that the former is the case, the micro-evolution necessary to merely tweak the system is a higher probability event and easier to imagine happening than the system evolving in toto.)

[DouglasKC]

God most certainly created this fish, and the mechanism he used was "numerous, successive, slight modifications".

Would you be able to tell the difference if these numerous, successive, slight modifications were done rapidly as opposed to a long period of time? For example, I picture God has having a master program for a generic fish. Each different type of fish has a slightly different program alterations, but they all use a basic fish program.

[G Larry]

Yes Creationists do know.
God made it that way.
Just right the first time.
Just because some folks hold the 7 days, 6,000 year theory dear, doesn't mean that is the view of all Creationists.
Creation does not preclude adaptation within a species (given the traditional definition of "species").
It does preclude transition from one species to another.
I for one, am not stuck on any particular time table for the Creation or the age of the earth.

[donh]

yeah, its all pretty simple when you dont have to prove it.

You don't prove things in science, you just bet the best odds available. Which of these is the most credible story, all else being equal: 1) God decided, just for his amusement, to make archerfish with this weird ability to calculate refraction angles, because archerfish are God's Chosen Creatures, I guess. 2) Archerfish learned to shoot prey that was stright overhead, and then got better at calculating angles because the archerfish who got more prey ate better and so had more offspring.

Yea, it's pretty simple to propose a lame creationist theory when you don't have look at it, or justify it, or defend its nonsensical implications, with any sort of detailed defense, and are content to just generally pee-spray on any competing idea.

[Stultis]

Fellow eviiiilutionists, we must DESTROY the archer fish! It cannot be allowed to mock us!! Release the Finches!

Wait, I know: Suicide bombardier beetles! Kill two birds with one stone! Muwahahahahaha!

[ccmay]

There is also the question whether the fish knows it's compensating. It sees a bug THERE. It knows when it spits, the spit goes in THAT direction. That's all that's necessary. The fact that THERE and THAT are not really in the direction the fish sees is immaterial.

Correct. And it's the same for humans.

The image that is projected on the retina by the lens of your eye is upside down and backwards. You can prove this by closing your eye, pressing gently on the eyeball at the edges of your eye sockets, and observing where the dark spot in your vision appears. The wiring in your optic nerves and brain corrects for this inversion without your conscious effort.

Likewise, the wiring of the eyes and brain in the archer fish has evolved in such a way that it automatically compensates for refraction. There is no mystery here, and I find this a pathetically weak argument in favor of young-Earth creationism.

-ccm

[freedumb2003]

More amazingly, marine researchers have discovered that these fish can hit their prey whether the amount of refraction is large or small. They have also found that the fishes' binocular vision allows them to see clearly at considerable distances above them, an ability other fish do not have.

IOW, it has developed over time the ability to thrive in its environment.

The author makes the blatant assertion that "Evolutionists can't explain this." That is bunk BY DEFINITION. "Evolutionists" (whatever the heck that is) can't always explain WHY a species adapts to its enviroment (kind of a reverse engineering) -- but they strive to put the peices together. The fact this fish has adapted provides FURTHER PROOF of TToE.

The straws that the CRIDers will grasp....

[Fresh Wind]

God created evolution. And He did a darn good job of it.

[freedumb2003]

Wonderful Irony Placemarker

Truth is beauty and beauty is truth. Thank goodness we don't have a court that removes life from those who have neither, else we wouldn't have CRIDer to have these little chats with (/Hitchhikers reference)

[Dimensio]

What explains it is that God designed and built the fish that way.

How have you determined the existence of this "God"? When did "God" design and built this fish? By what methods, processes and/or mechanisms was this fish designed and built? How have you determined that the fish was "designed and built"?

[DaGman]

"More likely they hung around in barrooms practicing drunk hitting the spittoons."

Which supports the adage and probably is the origin of that you should never bet anyone in a bar that says, "I'll bet you I can [fill in the blank].]

[CzarNicky]

in the future they will either die out or stay relatively the same or evolve into something else....is that too hard of a concept to accept?

It apparently is when one believes an invisible man who lives in the sky made everything in a week and it hasn't changed since then.

[Oztrich Boy]

I'm a little puzzled about why this disproves evolution.

Well think about it for a while, you'll be greatly puzzled