Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

So humans did or did not evolve from fish? It's kind of like a yes or no answer...shouldn't be too complicated. It's either, yes, humans evolved from fish, or no, they did not evolve from fish. Shouldn't be complicated...

Why does that fact matter to you? To demand an answer one has to have been honest and you have failed at debating honestly.

 

[John53]

So humans did or did not evolve from fish? It's kind of like a yes or no answer...shouldn't be too complicated. It's either, yes, humans evolved from fish, or no, they did not evolve from fish. Shouldn't be complicated...

Ok, you have no evidence of your intelligence that creates and guides life. Take your fish fetish to someone else, I answered you weeks ago, my answer hasn't changed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, you have no evidence of your intelligence that creates and guides life. Take your fish fetish to someone else, I answered you weeks ago, my answer hasn't changed.

That's ok. I wasn't trying to provide evidence for intelligent creation but was simply saying that humans are now said to have evolved from fish. It's that simple. It was supposedly a long time ago but that's how it works. From fish to humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, you have no evidence of your intelligence that creates and guides life. Take your fish fetish to someone else, I answered you weeks ago, my answer hasn't changed.

One more thing -- how intelligent are you? any of us? If I understand you correctly, it just evolved...intelligence evolved...

 

[YoursTrue]

Brains evolved ... some bigger, some smaller with varying degrees of evolved intelligences. Right? Naturally somehow intelligence got mixed into the mix after a while...

 

[John53]

One more thing -- how intelligent are you? any of us? If I understand you correctly, it just evolved...intelligence evolved...

I don't know how to measure it but I do know I'm less intelligent after having read this post.

 

[shunyadragon]

One more thing -- how intelligent are you? any of us? If I understand you correctly, it just evolved...intelligence evolved...

Yes, intelligence evolved. Important evidence is that the advanced intelligence of octopuses evolved independently of the evolution of intelligence in mammals and humans.

 

[shunyadragon]

Brains evolved ... some bigger, some smaller with varying degrees of evolved bits of intelligence. Right? Naturally, somehow intelligence got mixed into the mix after a while...

Not 'somehow.' Intelligence evolved over time because of the survival advantage of intelligence.

 

[gnostic]

That's ok. I wasn't trying to provide evidence for intelligent creation but was simply saying that humans are now said to have evolved from fish. It's that simple. It was supposedly a long time ago but that's how it works. From fish to humans.

I'm not speaking of the theory of intelligent design. Don't you believe that humans evolved from fish ?

Here's more of what you call dribble from scientists. "is nothing new about humans and all other vertebrates having evolved from fish. The conventional understanding has been that certain fish shimmied landwards roughly 370 million years ago as primitive, lizard-like animals known as tetrapods. According to this understanding, our fish ancestors came out from water to land by converting their fins to limbs and breathing under water to air-breathing."

You keep bringing up making this stupid fish & human.

What’s this obsession with making the same false & ignorant claims, over and over again?

Surely, you don’t believe that biologists are saying that fishes can give birth to humans, are you?

Because if you are, you are either terribly misinformed therefore lacked the education to understand what the biologists are saying. OR you are playing the dishonest propaganda card, where you create some false premises to attack (hence straw man argument).

I am thinking the later, since other members have already explain to you where you were wrong on the fish-human matters.

Fishes don’t give birth to humans. That’s not how evolution work, you don’t understand Evolution, and you will never will, since you cannot learn from your mistakes. And continuing to regurgitate this line of argument, even after you have been corrected, only demonstrates you are intellectually dishonest.

you think you are clever…you are not even close.

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep bringing up making this stupid fish & human.

What’s this obsession with making the same false & ignorant claims, over and over again?

Surely, you don’t believe that biologists are saying that fishes can give birth to humans, are you?

Because if you are, you are either terribly misinformed therefore lacked the education to understand what the biologists are saying. OR you are playing the dishonest propaganda card, where you create some false premises to attack (hence straw man argument).

I am thinking the later, since other members have already explain to you where you were wrong on the fish-human matters.

Fishes don’t give birth to humans. That’s not how evolution work, you don’t understand Evolution, and you will never will, since you cannot learn from your mistakes. And continuing to regurgitate this line of argument, even after you have been corrected, only demonstrates you are intellectually dishonest.

you think you are clever…you are not even close.

I'm only citing what scientists are saying now. Humans evolved from fish. I can't help it, that's what they say. Please do argue with them.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish​

That is from a bbc publication. Go argue with them.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm beginning to think that most of you arguing against the fish to human evolution do not understand evolution. OK, well have a good evening y'all.

 

[gnostic]

One more thing -- how intelligent are you? any of us? If I understand you correctly, it just evolved...intelligence evolved...

Brains evolved ... some bigger, some smaller with varying degrees of evolved intelligences. Right? Naturally somehow intelligence got mixed into the mix after a while...

Only largely among most vertebrate animals (not all), and among some groupings of invertebrate animals (not all). But not all animals have brains.

The following animals have no brains, and they are all marine invertebrates:

• Jellyfish
• Oyster
• Clam
• Sea urchin
• Sea anemone
• Starfish
• Sea squirt
• Sea lilie
• Coral
• Sponge

These are the only ones that I can remember right now, creatures that have no brain. However, except for the last one in that list above - the sponges, the rest have some sorts of set of connective neurons, not nerve tissues, but what biologists called NERVE NET.

The sponges are the only ones that don’t even have nerve net.

It far too complicated for me to explain what a “nerve net”, so you would have to either ask someone else, or look it up, read & learn it yourself.

Plus, intelligence are largely learning processes, therefore not the trait that can be passed on genetically.

Plus you are ignoring the rest of the eukaryotic kingdoms, like plants, fungi and protists, and domains of prokaryotic microorganisms, such as the bacteria and archaea. None of these non-animals have brains too. So intelligence isn’t a trait for these organisms, therefore intelligence isn’t really imperative among prokaryotes and among the majority of eukaryotes.

why are you ignoring other these non-animal organisms?

lastly, I have mentioned central nervous system and nerve net before, so clearly you have ignored my earlier reply on the subject intelligence and consciousness.

 

[gnostic]

I'm only citing what scientists are saying now. Humans evolved from fish. I can't help it, that's what they say. Please do argue with them.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish​

That is from a bbc publication. Go argue with them.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

Excuse me, but bbc isn’t a scientific source.

nothing in that report you had linked, that say fishes can give birth to humans. You are misreading (and MISUNDERSTANDING what you have read) the article.

some fishes would have evolved into amphibians, some amphibians into amniote organisms, which would later give rise to reptiles and mammals. The diversification of mammals didn’t happen till extinction of most large non-avian dinosaurs in the K-Pg extinction, 66 million years ago. From this diversification, earlier species of primates gave rise to the monkey and then apes. Among the apes are the genus Homo, “human”.

you are missing and ignoring whole bunch of transitional species - amphibians, amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, etc, only demonstrates your level of education in biology is close to zero, because you allow your JW’s version of creationism, keeping you ignorant and dishonest.
.
Lastly. Fishes don’t give live birth like the way majority of mammals do, as fishes don’t have wombs. Fishes lay their fertilised eggs in water, just as amphibians do, hence both fishes and amphibians are referred to as anamniotes, because they laid their eggs in water.

Amniotes are all animals that either laid their eggs on dry land as reptiles and birds do, and mammals mostly keep their embryos/fetus in their wombs for periods of time before giving live birth.

I said, “mostly” with mammal, because there are couple of exceptions, the platypuses and echidna lay their eggs on land.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm beginning to think that most of you arguing against the fish to human evolution do not understand evolution. OK, well have a good evening y'all.

The problem is an inability of you to understand basic English and communicate what you read coherently. I responded many times and you chose to ignore the facts. I even posted the entire article you misunderstood and you failed to respond.

None of the articles proposed that humans evolved directly from fish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm beginning to think that most of you arguing against the fish to human evolution do not understand evolution. OK, well have a good evening y'all.

I have not seen anyone arguing against it. I have only seen people refusing to answer pointless questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Only largely among most vertebrate animals (not all), and among some groupings of invertebrate animals (not all). But not all animals have brains.

The following animals have no brains, and they are all marine invertebrates:

• Jellyfish
• Oyster
• Clam
• Sea urchin
• Sea anemone
• Starfish
• Sea squirt
• Sea lilie
• Coral
• Sponge

These are the only ones that I can remember right now, creatures that have no brain. However, except for the last one in that list above - the sponges, the rest have some sorts of set of connective neurons, not nerve tissues, but what biologists called NERVE NET.

The sponges are the only ones that don’t even have nerve net.

It far too complicated for me to explain what a “nerve net”, so you would have to either ask someone else, or look it up, read & learn it yourself.

Plus, intelligence are largely learning processes, therefore not the trait that can be passed on genetically.

Plus you are ignoring the rest of the eukaryotic kingdoms, like plants, fungi and protists, and domains of prokaryotic microorganisms, such as the bacteria and archaea. None of these non-animals have brains too. So intelligence isn’t a trait for these organisms, therefore intelligence isn’t really imperative among prokaryotes and among the majority of eukaryotes.

why are you ignoring other these non-animal organisms?

lastly, I have mentioned central nervous system and nerve net before, so clearly you have ignored my earlier reply on the subject intelligence and consciousness.

Ty for explaining about living organisms with no brains. So do you know if these were around (on the earth) before organisms with brains?

 

[YoursTrue]

Excuse me, but bbc isn’t a scientific source.

nothing in that report you had linked, that say fishes can give birth to humans. You are misreading (and MISUNDERSTANDING what you have read) the article.

some fishes would have evolved into amphibians, some amphibians into amniote organisms, which would later give rise to reptiles and mammals. The diversification of mammals didn’t happen till extinction of most large non-avian dinosaurs in the K-Pg extinction, 66 million years ago. From this diversification, earlier species of primates gave rise to the monkey and then apes. Among the apes are the genus Homo, “human”.

you are missing and ignoring whole bunch of transitional species - amphibians, amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, etc, only demonstrates your level of education in biology is close to zero, because you allow your JW’s version of creationism, keeping you ignorant and dishonest.
.
Lastly. Fishes don’t give live birth like the way majority of mammals do, as fishes don’t have wombs. Fishes lay their fertilised eggs in water, just as amphibians do, hence both fishes and amphibians are referred to as anamniotes, because they laid their eggs in water.

Amniotes are all animals that either laid their eggs on dry land as reptiles and birds do, and mammals mostly keep their embryos/fetus in their wombs for periods of time before giving live birth.

I said, “mostly” with mammal, because there are couple of exceptions, the platypuses and echidna lay their eggs on land.

I'm afraid you completely misunderstood. I did not and still do not imagine that fish gave birth to humans in the short run. Mermaids maybe?
What I was saying is that according to the theory, including that of floppy fish that manage to crawl out of water for a while and then apparently forever, stopped needing total aqueous environment after millions of years, some kind of fish apparently is said to evolve into humans. Somehow somewhere.

 

[YoursTrue]

Excuse me, but bbc isn’t a scientific source.

nothing in that report you had linked, that say fishes can give birth to humans. You are misreading (and MISUNDERSTANDING what you have read) the article.

some fishes would have evolved into amphibians, some amphibians into amniote organisms, which would later give rise to reptiles and mammals. The diversification of mammals didn’t happen till extinction of most large non-avian dinosaurs in the K-Pg extinction, 66 million years ago. From this diversification, earlier species of primates gave rise to the monkey and then apes. Among the apes are the genus Homo, “human”.

you are missing and ignoring whole bunch of transitional species - amphibians, amniotes, synapsids, mammals, primates, etc, only demonstrates your level of education in biology is close to zero, because you allow your JW’s version of creationism, keeping you ignorant and dishonest.
.
Lastly. Fishes don’t give live birth like the way majority of mammals do, as fishes don’t have wombs. Fishes lay their fertilised eggs in water, just as amphibians do, hence both fishes and amphibians are referred to as anamniotes, because they laid their eggs in water.

Amniotes are all animals that either laid their eggs on dry land as reptiles and birds do, and mammals mostly keep their embryos/fetus in their wombs for periods of time before giving live birth.

I said, “mostly” with mammal, because there are couple of exceptions, the platypuses and echidna lay their eggs on land.

Ty for recognizing that the prevailing theory is that some fish evolved to amphibians. And then do you think these amphibians became or evolved to humans? After a long time, of course with possibly little incremental changes?

 

[exchemist]

Ty for explaining about living organisms with no brains. So do you know if these were around (on the earth) before organisms with brains?

Yes of course we do. And you know why, too.

 

[exchemist]

Ty for recognizing that the prevailing theory is that some fish evolved to amphibians. And then do you think these amphibians became or evolved to humans? After a long time, of course with possibly little incremental changes?

You know the answer to this. So why ask, if not to troll, stupidly?