The processes of evolution

Before I begin a new debate, I want to set some ground rules.1) No insults, no mockery and sarcasm. I will not respond to such letters.
I respect your believes, please respect mine.2) Please keep your replies short. I will also attempt to write short posts.3) And lastly a note. I will not be visiting this site on a daily basis, as I'm not all emotional on this subject. I'm simply curious how evolutionists will respond.There, thats done. Now I can get to my question:How did fish develop lungs?

Thanks for your reply.I cannot say I understood exactly what you said as I don't have any tertiary education in science. I think I might have asked the question wrong. What I meant was WHY did they develop lungs. I think this is a question rather like "What came first: the chicken or the egg?". A fish swimming merrily in the ocean will have no disire to walk around on the surface, since it can't breath there. If it did, somehow, manage to get out to the surface, it would die within minutes. Therefore, before the fish got out on land, it had to develop lungs first. But why would it develop lungs, if its gills work just fine in its living environment?

All the examples shown here are of fish that already possesses the capability to live outside water. Their breathing system is already adapted for it. I am aware of their existance. However, evolution dictates that this capability is not automatic, but that it must have been develop. Therefore, I wish to concentrate on fishes that does not have this capability. Lets take a fish that cannot survive outside water, and cannot use its fins to move around outside water. Acording to evolution, this is what the precursors of land animals must have been like. The question is, how do these fishes get the capability to move on land? Remember, the genetic code to create lungs does not exist yet, so this process cannot be compared with the live cicle of an amphibian, whos genetic code already contain the information to form lungs.I do not agree with the arguement that it was food that lured them out to land. When a whale beaches itself, only animals that can move on land will come out from the water to feed on it. You do not see fishes (such as sharks) that cannot live above water, struggling out to join the feast. If this was the case, evolution is feasable: The fish that can crawl out better, is more likely to survive and pass on their genes. But this is crearly not the case. They simply don't come out. Similarly, the lush plants of the tropics do not lure fish that can not move on land. Science assume that things worked in the past as they work today. Therefore, we can savely descard the theory that propose that fish were "lured by the advantages of walking on land". This advantage, however great it might be, cannot change the genetic makeup of animals, because genetics is chemistry, and habitat advantiges is not.If evolution did happen, then there must be some other mechanism thatcaused it.

Thanks. The theory seems plausible.There is something else that is bothering me: the origens in live. Is it true that all (cell based) live forms has a common ancestor?

What I mean to ask, is this. We are often told that, if evolution would've happend all over again, live would've looked totally different. Thus, if more than one organism evolved from the primordial soup, then they would've been radically different from each other, and unable to reproduce with each other. They would all have formed seperate chains of very distinct liveforms, with no similarities between them. Yet, if we study evolution, it seems as if all animals comes from the same evolutionary tree. The very makeup of cells, indicate a common origin, does it not?If this is not the case, how is it possible that a cell that is totally historically unrelated to another, can have the same make-up?
Why don't we find lots of independant evolutionary trees, instead of just one?Surely, a single evolutionary tree indicates a single origin, doesn't it?

Just so I am 100% percent clear on this. Am I then correct in saying the current theory is that all dna based live forms evolved from a single organism?

************************************************************
The biggest problem we have once you get to the bacterial stage (which lasted about 2 billion years) of the development of life, is that the lineages start getting very, hmm, promiscuous. A whole lot of gene swapping between wildly different organisms (such as between archaea and bacteria) and a lot of serial endosymbiotic events took place.
*************************************************************
Are you saying what i think you're saying?If animals of two different species were to mate, there will be no ofspring, because their DNA code is not compatible. (With the notable exception of a horse and a donkey)Are you saying that this rule do not apply to micro life forms?In other words, if monkeys and lions were bacteria, would they be able to produce offspring?

So, if you get down to that level, there are no distinct species, right? Well, that just blew my arguement to bits. I thought the theory says that all live came from a single organism. I was going to argue genetic regresion, but seems like that one won't work so well anymore. Oh, well....I thought of something else that is bothering me. Evolusion in an animals livestyle. Take that fish that swims upstream to mate where it was born. What's it called? Macerral? I think that's it, though I don't think that's the spelling. Anyway. Here you have a fish that mated in the oceans just like any other fish. Now it has to evolve the instinct to swim all the way back up a river. I don't think this can be caused by natural selection: The fish that just mate in the ocean where it is has a much better chance to pass on its genes than the fish that desides: "Mmmm I wonder what mating is like way up there". Chances are, he would not succeed. And even if it did, there must be at least two that was sucessful in their attempt before they can breed. The species as a whole needs to perfect this skill to swim all the way up a river, and it is more likely that none of those very early pioneers survived to pass on their genes.

Thanks.I can't think of anything else right now, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before my creationist mind think up something else again.Cheers.