[Ichneumon]

Yup. And they seem to do quite well there, they seem to be happy there, they are well accustomed to it - so what need was there for them to grow legs and transform themselves into totally different creatures?

Because there were open ecological niches on land which had less competition for resources than back in the water.

Plus, fish living in areas of unreliable resources or environment (e.g., shallows where they could often be trapped in tidal pools which had a chance of drying up) would have strong selective pressures to develop methods to survive longer and longer periods out of the water (to, say, abandon a shrinking pool to locate another or flop to a lake or the sea).

This is all Biology 101, were you sleeping through class?

Note: Any which way you answer you are refuting your excuse for evolution.

*snort*. Dream on.

[gore3000]

Yup. And they seem to do quite well there, they seem to be happy there, they are well accustomed to it - so what need was there for them to grow legs and transform themselves into totally different creatures? -me-

Because there were open ecological niches on land which had less competition for resources than back in the water.

Well, your answer is nice, however it shows the evolutionist contortionism needed to justify the theory. My statement was in response to the following:

For one thing, "we" would not all have evolved into the same thing because we don't all live in the same environment.

So explain how if fish are adapted to this nice watery environment they need to go through the trouble of growing legs and all the other changes necessary to become earth inhabiting creatures. Seems to me there would be a lot better (and easier ways) of becoming more dominant in the environment they already knew.

Also, if they lived in the sea and could not walk and stuff, how did they know there was an 'empty niche' on land? Who told them? Does natural selection have esp??????????????