Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

You missed the logical proposition that an idea doesn't need to be disproved to not be believed. Nothing in scripture can be said to be factual without external, empiric confirmation.

But you refuse to discuss this in my terms. You refuse to consider your premises and assumptions that nothing exists outside of science as you just clearly stated above. But then you compound this error by failing to recognize that many of your beliefs are not even founded in science but rather in extrapolations, definitions, and assumption. You don't understand metaphysics so you don't understand that even the most basic extrapolations are not really justified. You understand the concept of gravity causing air pressure but then you extrapolate this to believing no pockets of vacuum can exist on the face of the earth even momentarily. You assume that gravity is universal not only here but on the other side of the cosmos. You assume math can be used to reflect all of reality. You assume that the current paradigms for interpretation of reality are all correct and that they will merely be tweaked going forward. You assume that expert opinion is founded not so much in metaphysics but in reality itself. On this basis you say "Nothing in scripture can be said to be factual". This might be acceptable if you defined "factual" in such a way as to leave open the possibility that all of scripture is literally correct as I do. In your world with your assumptions and inductive reasoning this is simply an impossibility. Yet you never even consider definitions and parsing of the words of those with whom you disagree or even those with whom you do agree. You just can't imagine that you don't understand some medical jargon or the Bible. You can't imagine someone intending a different definition for a word that you choose to parse in a way that was unintended or don't notice you do. All of your premises are invisible to you and you might not have noticed when you adopted them and not noticed as you built your constructs with them in your mind chiefly as blueprints and mnemonics but also for thought itself. You don't know what thinking is or what consciousness is.

You don't want to talk to somebody to explore their premises you want to understand why they don't share yours.

In college I was very adept at thinking what you call "scientifically'. I could see all the forces acting on everything and knew how everything worked. But I was fully aware that I had enormous holes in my understanding and the picture I saw of reality wasn't really complete because it was largely extrapolation. Of course I was young and fixated not on what I didn't know but what I did. I saw reality much like you do but more in terms of chemistry and physics. I saw reality play out in time more than most do. I could always run between the raindrops because I had a 6th (168th) sense of where the next would fall. We were much the same.

All that has changed first as a gradual evolution and then suddenly when I discovered the nature of thought. I've had to tear down parts of my models and rebuild because of new learning.

If I believed there was any chance at all of you considering your premises and definitions I'd be happy to have any conversation with you in this thread or through pm's. I really can't see it happening because You can't consider either of our premises and you will simply try to get me to "see the light" that science is a reflection of everything real. It is not. Even to the degree science is correct it will always be nothing but spectra of different aspects of reality. Seeing the big picture is an impossibility using reductionistic science and science today is hamstrung by believing in math as the basis of reality because it is logic that underlies all. Reality is binary. Consciousness is binary. Homo omnisciencis is confused and do not understand the nature of life or how it changes.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you sure can use dishonest tactics.

You're posting a full documentary dealing with worms in general.
The video I posted dealt with only one specific thing and it was the exact thing you were asking for.
In the video I posted, there is no need for you to go hunt for the answer to your question. The video IS the answer to your question and it literally starts with explaining WHY he went to search for the fossil of that age.

Whereas the one you posted..... doesn't.

It did give an answer to a question my wife and I often wondered, gravel gnomes pushed up rocks to the surface every spring but what buried them in the first place? Wurmz.

 

[cladking]

Animals do dream, but they do not self reflect on their dreams; analyze. They may see the dream, but they will react in their sleep, more like they do in reality. This allows a way to train their brain, while sleeping, to reflect possible ways to work around their environmental repressions; bottlenecks in reality.

Thank you. Your post is way over my head but I picked a few things up from it. Of course you're right that animals don't analyze their dreams but I have little doubt they can remember them and this memory can, at least rarely, affect their consciousness and ultimately their behavior.

We just got a new kitten. She is about 8 weeks old; Abyssinian. She will stand down the old cats if they get too rough. She already appears to be watching training films in her head, and is acting them out, chasing invisible prey; projection effect. This is the type of effect than have when they dream. Nobody taught her, since she is so young, yet she is playing in a way, as through she is interacting, with an actual external prey, but it is all being projected; play. When you explore the unconscious mind this type of stuff is very common and give good data which can make you realize there is someone else in there; inner self.

I believe a great deal of what the young do is a form of play. They create what if scenarios and then sometimes act them out. It's no doubt natural and wired into their brains. Even I will engage in play at times as well as play around with what if's. The young lack experience and can gain it safely in play.

Even many religions, dreams and visions are part to their faith. These would reflect the internal dynamics, where their times repress aspects of human nature, and the inner self and brain, attempt to trigger this stalled memory in favor of the 2nd law. They have collective dreams and visions for the whole tribe. In the animal sense, this could give then give an entire herd a special selective advantage.

Certainly dreams tell the dreamer a lot about himself and what's important to him at his current stage of life or current situation. I believe that the binary brain (consciousness) actually takes command at a couple sleep stages and this is why we can go to bed with a problem and wake up with an obvious answer. It takes practice but I try to have at least one thing for it every night. Of course many problems have no obvious answer.

 

[cladking]

There are accepted definitions of consciousness as previously cited, which are generally accepted eith the consideration that over time more research and discoveries will increase our knowledge.

No! There is no scientific definition of "consciousness". This isn't to say that some neurologists or microbiologists know nothing about and don't have any keen insights as to its nature. It just means there is no definition. none is possible with reductionistic science if I am correct because it can not be reduced. As more is learned there will be better and more complete models but they can not reflect reality because we don't even experience consciousness as I've tried to explain countless time. We experience thought derived from language and our beliefs. Consciousness is binary and can contain no beliefs and no experience of thinking. Ancient Language had NO words that meant belief or implied anyone ever had a belief. Most words in modern languages will lead you to belief if you pursue definitions of their definitions. Most modern words are abstractions and each of their definitions are abstractions. All words are symbolic and analog so this is the very nature of thought which subsumes and mostly replaces consciousness.

This is not difficult to understand. Any bright seventh grader could follow it. It's not like it's all jargon or complex. Most of it is simply hard to believe so people won't even parse it as I intend.

Consciousness can not be studied scientifically until it is defined and aspects can be quantified. It is not studied at this time and will never be understood on current trajectory because we are sleep walkers who only wake up briefly a few times a night when we aren't even dreaming. It is entirely possible to discover all this by the study of consciousness in other species. It is even possible that it will be attacked by studying the simpler forms such as trees or dust mites.

Ancient science was much simpler because they could observe consciousness directly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it is not that I don’t´see the alleged answer………… the truth is that I saw the alleged answer, saw flaws in that answer but before addressing the flaws I whant to make sure that it really is your answer (hence I ask you to quote the answer)……otherwise you would simply dismiss my rebuttal by saying “no that was not my answer”

First, that doesn't address my comment that you quoted. Read the words again:

"How are we to understand you repeatedly having this experience with multiple posters and you not even considering the possibility that, assuming that you are not trolling - and I do; I don't think that about you - that you are blind to these answers and can never figure that out even with prompting and encouragement. Why aren't you curious that YOU might be the problem and have difficulty seeing that? THAT's the compelling mystery for me. Why not? If it were trolling or fear of being shown wrong, I would expect different answers from you that the ones we see above - more deceptive in the first case and more defensive in the latter."

My point is that multiple posters have answered you followed by a series of posts where you say that you never saw an answer, ask it to be repeated which is done for you, followed by more of the same - more claims that the question was never answered followed by repeating the answer and/or linking to a previous answer, followed by more of you saying not only that you never saw it, but that it was never written and you are being gaslighted.

Second, your words don't make sense and aren't credible. They don't account for why you end up saying that you never saw the answer. Also, nobody seeks clarification to a comment without even mentioning seeing it much less repeating any problematic part of it.

Let me illustrate. Suppose none of the words I've written here had written - nothing to indicate that I had seen or understood your response to me above - but instead I wrote in a few days that you ignored the comment quoted in italics above rather than simply not addressing its salient points. You object and point out that you did give me a response and repeat it.

You repeat, "it is not that I don’t´see the alleged answer………… the truth is that I saw the alleged answer, saw flaws in that answer but before addressing the flaws I whant to make sure that it really is your answer (hence I ask you to quote the answer)……otherwise you would simply dismiss my rebuttal by saying “no that was not my answer"

More time passes, and I say that you never responded. You object again and refer me to the two posts with the answer, but later, I claim that you still haven't answered. Eventually, you become disgusted and say that you refuse to keep repeating this, at which time I accuse you of gaming and gaslighting me, of having never answered me, and now making up stories to save face.

That's what it's been like for me with you, and now we see others commenting on the same thing happening with them.

Lets take this a bit further. I do this to you this year, then again next year, then a third time a year later, and you wonder aloud whether I do it knowingly to troll you or am being honest when I say that I don't recall ever seeing your answer, and you invite me to discuss the matter noting that you have asked others about similar behavior and gotten no response - no willingness to discuss this phenomenon.

Furthermore, after explaining to me how common this phenomenon has been in your experience with multiple posters, you predict that I will once again fail to acknowledge the topic being broached and will not only not discuss whether I am trolling you or sincerely having difficulty, and that is exactly what happens as happened here with you. I wrote all of the following words:

"How are we to understand you repeatedly having this experience with multiple posters and you not even considering the possibility that, assuming that you are not trolling - and I do; I don't think that about you - that you are blind to these answers and can never figure that out even with prompting and encouragement. Why aren't you curious that YOU might be the problem and have difficulty seeing that? THAT's the compelling mystery for me. Why not? If it were trolling or fear of being shown wrong, I would expect different answers from you that the ones we see above - more deceptive in the first case and more defensive in the latter."

There's no indication that you saw, read, or understood those words. Why is that I ask myself, since there appears to be no point asking you.

Why is that, Leroy? Why are you uninterested in the possibility that these other people can see something you don't and are trying to make you aware of it? How does that serve you?

I don't understand how many others think, but a bedrock assumption of mine is that behaviors we repeatedly indulge in are motivated by some reason or understanding however false and that this behavior in service of some need. That is, there is some formula connecting what we believe is true and what we believe will follow a given action however inefficient that thinking has been previously and however many times it may have failed in the past.

But I can't begin to imagine what that is with you and the others that are unwilling to acknowledge seeing words like these much less discuss them as if there might be merit there. I can't even imagine ideas that you might hold that lead you to choose that option. I considered and rejected trolling and fear of discussing the topic. That leaves cognitive blindness, but even with that, people are generally interested in that possibility when evidence arises that it might be the case. But not you or the others who go mute when I broach this topic with them.

Why? What's in it for them to do that? What explains that choice? Not misguided the beliefs and reasoning. Those don't make people unwilling to discuss their choices.

you refuse to discuss this in my terms.

I've already explained to you that I don't understand your terms. I don't know what you mean when you use many words other than that it is not what I and others mean when they use the same words, and I don't know why you say many of the things you say that are clearly wrong to me such as that life is consciousness and all life is conscious. Nor can I get you t clarify that. You'll write words, but they don't flesh out your thoughts any more. They're just more of the same.

We can't have meaningful discussion under those circumstances, and I am convinced that we never will.

 

[shunyadragon]

No! There is no scientific definition of "consciousness". This isn't to say that some neurologists or microbiologists know nothing about and don't have any keen insights as to its nature. It just means there is no definition. none is possible with reductionistic science if I am correct because it can not be reduced. As more is learned there will be better and more complete models but they can not reflect reality because we don't even experience consciousness as I've tried to explain countless time. We experience thought derived from language and our beliefs. Consciousness is binary and can contain no beliefs and no experience of thinking. Ancient Language had NO words that meant belief or implied anyone ever had a belief. Most words in modern languages will lead you to belief if you pursue definitions of their definitions. Most modern words are abstractions and each of their definitions are abstractions. All words are symbolic and analog so this is the very nature of thought which subsumes and mostly replaces consciousness.

This is not difficult to understand. Any bright seventh grader could follow it. It's not like it's all jargon or complex. Most of it is simply hard to believe so people won't even parse it as I intend.

Consciousness can not be studied scientifically until it is defined and aspects can be quantified. It is not studied at this time and will never be understood on current trajectory because we are sleep walkers who only wake up briefly a few times a night when we aren't even dreaming. It is entirely possible to discover all this by the study of consciousness in other species. It is even possible that it will be attacked by studying the simpler forms such as trees or dust mites.

Ancient science was much simpler because they could observe consciousness directly.

You live in the Paleolithic without science, You did not make it to the 7th grade.

 

[Pogo]

Agree so if the descendents of humans evolve in to something that we would call a fish this new specie would be part of the fish paraphyletic group, there is nothing in the definition of paraphyletic group that prevents this.

Well to start with even a 5 year old would not include coins with fish most likely.
That said if you have a paraphyletic group that you call fish that does not include tetrapods, if you add a tetrapod to that group, it has ceased to be the original paraphyletic group and thus whatever you have added, say a rhinoceros, it still violates the definition of the group you started with just as much as it would have by including a coin in the paraphyletic group you called fish.

Species Specie - Wikipedia
Definitions are not arbitrary, they are agreed upon uses as understanding what semantics is would tell you.

Semantics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This new specie and tuna fish for example would:

1 share a common ancestor

2 some but not all their descendants would be fish

You are mucking it up again, evolutionarily, if your ancestors were fish by whatever phylogeny, you and your descendants would be fish.

In evolution and biology and science as currently understood this is reality. It is admittedly not the common or non-scientific understanding as presented by a five year old who calls anything that looks like the pictures in his book fish and even the definition that persons ignorant of modern taxonomy might use.

It is not us confusing the issue, it is you refusing to understand the appropriateness of the different definitions according to context and equivocating them.

yes and the site simply expalines what I did............fish is not a clade.......and you know it, You just what to disagree for the sake of disagreeing

It isn't even a question of cladistics, for example, I have two lineages that I call 1 and 2, no amount of evolution will ever change a 2 into a 1 by the definitions of the ancestry of the groups. If group 1 did not include group 2 then it never will whatever phenotypical resemblance some member may have.
I realize there are a lot of syllables here, but you can learn about them here.
Evolution 101

 

[Dimi95]

Just barely.

So you don't know , that is the worst option.

It is impossible to study consciousness or life without first having a definition. I am merely providing definitions so we can begin the study of life and how species change. By coming to understand consciousness we can come to communicate with life and better understand ourselves and our past. A great deal of good can come from understanding such things.

This is not the end of science but rather the beginning.

Ok , but nothing about consciousness suggest that is embodied suddenly.
We see the evidence again in the procceses.
We can see that in the cell.
All cells are sentient and volitional;
That means capable of making decisions and acting on them

When cells assume different, functionally important and heritable fates without an associated genetic or environmental difference, cellular decision-making occurs.
This includes:
-asymmetric cell divisions
*create daughter cells that assume the same fates

-differentiation of isogenic cells exposed to the same environment.
* "Isogenic cells show a large degree of variability in growth rate, even when cultured in the same environment. Such cell-to-cell variability in growth can alter sensitivity to antibiotics, chemotherapy and environmental stress. To characterize transcriptional differences associated with this variability, we have developed a method—FitFlow—that enables the sorting of subpopulations by growth rate. The slow-growing subpopulation shows a transcriptional stress response, but, more surprisingly, these cells have reduced RNA polymerase fidelity and exhibit a DNA damage response. As DNA damage is often caused by oxidative stress, we test the addition of an antioxidant, and find that it reduces the size of the slow-growing population. More generally, we find a significantly altered transcriptome in the slow-growing subpopulation that only partially resembles that of cells growing slowly due to environmental and culture conditions. Slow-growing cells upregulate transposons and express more chromosomal, viral and plasmid-borne transcripts, and thus explore a larger genotypic—and so phenotypic — space."

Slow-growing cells within isogenic populations have increased RNA polymerase error rates and DNA damage - PMC

Isogenic cells show a large degree of variability in growth rate, even when cultured in the same environment. Such cell-to-cell variability in growth can alter sensitivity to antibiotics, chemotherapy and environmental stress. To characterize ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Humans always make sense in terms of their premises. From their words and behavior you can deduce their premises.

So why do you still insist on the same issues?

Sparrows always make sense in terms of their experience and knowledge. From their behavior you can deduce what they know and even how they came to know it.

Any such description would be necessarily filtered through a human perception and imagination.

Humans share genes with sparrows , but not all genes are the same.

You forget that the brains of humans and sparrows are different in structure and function.

There are levels of 'thinking',that a bird can not reach.
That’s what humans have
achieved:
-understanding abstact things
-imagining what might not be real and acting on it.

This means building a whole reality on the imagined.

 

[cladking]

You persist in "inventing" your definitions based on a personal metaphysical foggy perspective without science.

No. NONE of my definitions are "invented". Homo omniscience is a word not a definition.

I'm using words to describe things you don't believe exists but as I've explained countless times in countless ways reality is not beholden to my opinion, your opinion, or the opinion of any or every expert. I have solid scientific reasons for every contention. I started down this path because i couldn't understand how it's possible to solve how the pyramids were built and have it ignored. Even after every prediction comes true it is ignored. This has been solved and part of the solution says that at some time many centuries after the pyramids were built the species that built them became extinct and we are so different that we can't even understand how they thought. They said how they were built and left blueprints but we can't read them because we see parts and our parts are what show up in blueprints. They said and drew the big picture because that's how they thought. They didn't understand reality by taking it apart in experiment, they observed the big picture and used deduction to discover patterns.

This is not complex. it is merely alien to our species.

So does science from a more objective perspective without metaphysical and religious attachments.

"Science" has no clue to how the brain thinks. This is why they erroneously say consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain. This is wrong on countless levels as I've explained repeatedly and you simply ignore.

"Objectivity" is IMPOSSIBLE if you don't delineate every assumption, axiom, and definition. All knowledge derives from a metaphysical underpinning. It is dependent on this underpinning or experience. Science can only be objective to the degree it is consistent with these assumptions. I am telling you point blank many of the assumptions are simply wrong. This includes assumptions that apply to every field of science. Science doesn't need to start over from scratch. It simply needs to rebuild on new assumptions. It needs some definitions and an understanding that axioms also influence results.

Yes, this will be somewhat revolutionary to incorporate ancient knowledge but this will eventually open up many new doors for exploration. It will provide a means to create new experiment. It might even be possible to use ancient and modern science in tandem with computers leading to machine intelligence and much more rapid progress. Everything takes time and Egyptology has already wasted the last 18 years by refusing to gather data or perform experiment. Throwing a little technology at the pyramid haphazardly is not science. Science demands a methodical and systematic search for anomalies and then intense study of each anomaly. They run it more like a circus and then hide data even from Egyptologists. We need the truth. We have the best results when the truth is known and we can build civilization around it instead of a steady stream of lies. I'm quite aware truth can be disruptive in the short term. Seven billion people suddenly discovering they are confused as well as their leaders could even possibly lead to a speciation event but the reality is we are infinitely malleable and we will each adapt.

We can undo the damage caused by the collapse of the tower of babel. We can undo the belief in survival of the fittest that has already caused countless millions of human deaths and intense suffering. We can build a new golden age for billions of people.

We probably have no choice at all in this matter because it will all be rediscovered by reductionistic science anyway. There are countless ways and I am highlighting many avenues to get there. Why not get started?

 

[Dimi95]

You are mucking it up again, evolutionarily, if your ancestors were fish by whatever phylogeny, you and your descendants would be fish.

Is it not 'fish alike' instead of 'fish' , technically speaking?

All living things have way of adding variation,that is why i am asking.

 

[cladking]

The bold above has been a problem for the history of humanity, and an increasing problem in the last 5000 years,

There is virtually no history before 4000 years ago which is exactly why I believe the tower of babel occurred in 2000 BC. There is one mention of a war circa 2300 BC but no details and no certainty on the scale or nature of this "war"; merely the location and opposing sides. For every practical purpose history began in 2000 BC 1200 years after the invention of writing.

 

[Dimi95]

There is virtually no history before 4000 years ago which is exactly why I believe the tower of babel occurred in 2000 BC. There is one mention of a war circa 2300 BC but no details and no certainty on the scale or nature of this "war"; merely the location and opposing sides. For every practical purpose history began in 2000 BC 1200 years after the invention of writing.

It is strange somehow , the land where i come from it has 5000 years of History.

And you say that virtually there is no History..
So what do we do with the 1000 , we just forget it?

 

[Pogo]

So you don't know , that is the worst option.



Ok , but nothing about consciousness suggest that is embodied suddenly.
We see the evidence again in the procceses.
We can see that in the cell.
All cells are sentient and volitional;
That means capable of making decisions and acting on them

When cells assume different, functionally important and heritable fates without an associated genetic or environmental difference, cellular decision-making occurs.
This includes:
-asymmetric cell divisions
*create daughter cells that assume the same fates

-differentiation of isogenic cells exposed to the same environment.
* "Isogenic cells show a large degree of variability in growth rate, even when cultured in the same environment. Such cell-to-cell variability in growth can alter sensitivity to antibiotics, chemotherapy and environmental stress. To characterize transcriptional differences associated with this variability, we have developed a method—FitFlow—that enables the sorting of subpopulations by growth rate. The slow-growing subpopulation shows a transcriptional stress response, but, more surprisingly, these cells have reduced RNA polymerase fidelity and exhibit a DNA damage response. As DNA damage is often caused by oxidative stress, we test the addition of an antioxidant, and find that it reduces the size of the slow-growing population. More generally, we find a significantly altered transcriptome in the slow-growing subpopulation that only partially resembles that of cells growing slowly due to environmental and culture conditions. Slow-growing cells upregulate transposons and express more chromosomal, viral and plasmid-borne transcripts, and thus explore a larger genotypic—and so phenotypic — space."

Slow-growing cells within isogenic populations have increased RNA polymerase error rates and DNA damage - PMC

Isogenic cells show a large degree of variability in growth rate, even when cultured in the same environment. Such cell-to-cell variability in growth can alter sensitivity to antibiotics, chemotherapy and environmental stress. To characterize ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So why do you still insist on the same issues?


Any such description would be necessarily filtered through a human perception and imagination.

Humans share genes with sparrows , but not all genes are the same.

You forget that the brains of humans and sparrows are different in structure and function.

There are levels of 'thinking',that a bird can not reach.
That’s what humans have
achieved:
-understanding abstact things
-imagining what might not be real and acting on it.

This means building a whole reality on the imagined.

Yeah, birds.

 

[cladking]

So you don't know , that is the worst option.

No. The worst possible communication is throwing hand grenades and launching rockets like in the Ukraine or Gaza.

Any such description would be necessarily filtered through a human perception and imagination.

Yes!!! This is why we must keep our models in sync with reality. If you believe in instinct you can't even see behavior.

You forget that the brains of humans and sparrows are different in structure and function.

I'm sure they are. But I maintain the biggest difference is that sparrow brains are in sync with reality while our brains are in sync with what the individual believes. Sparrows aren't necessarily less conscious, intelligent, or aware they are merely programmed by logic where ours are programmed by the broca's area. All life other than homo omnisciencis shares a great deal in common.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is simply no evidence that the Tower of Babel ever existed.

The sciences of Geology, Paleontology, and archeology have demonstrated that the Creation narrative and Noah's Flood as described in the Bible never happened. Example:: experiments such as geologic cores around the world clearly document to such Noah flood ever took place. Even our geologic knowledge of the Levant shows no such evidence for a regional flood.

There completely lacks supporting evidence for much of the ancient history in the Pentateuch, because it was compiled after 600 BCE, based on traditional mythology and more ancient texts going back to the Sumerian texts.

Dawkins' scientific work had nothing to do with the ancient mythology of the Bible.

When someone makes the claim as you are doing it is up you to provide the evidence to support the claim. You have not presented any verifiable evidence to support your claims. What objective evidence can you provide that would demonstrate that the Tower of Babel ever existed.

The sciences of evolution are based on such objective verifiable evidence confirmed and supported by 95% of the scientists and the major academic institutions in the related fields in the world.

You have not met that standard,

There's no evidence about lots of things. Doesn't mean it never was there...in fact many records have been destroyed by fire or other calamities.

 

[cladking]

Yeah, birds.

I've seen this film before. I see all sorts of animals using all sorts of man made objects for numerous purposes.

When I was ten years old I had a dream I had sat still so long in a tree that all the animals forgot I was there. A couple of redwing blackbirds landed nearby and one asked the other "do you think it's time to tell humans yet that they are not the crown of creation?" Even then I suspected we are not so smart as we think we are. We merely use complex language to pass learning from generation to generation.

 

[Dimi95]

Yeah, birds.

Thebeasy way is always the best option.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, birds.

Love it. One day all humans alive will enjoy seeing wonderful things.

 

[Pogo]

Is it not 'fish alike' instead of 'fish' , technically speaking?

All living things have way of adding variation,that is why i am asking.

Yes they evolve differences, but we don't classify ourselves as tetrapod like, we are tetrapods as are whales even though they only have two pods left and 5 year olds think they are fish. In terms of biology, they are fish-like, but they are still tetrapods. @leroy is the one who thinks you can evolve into a group without common evolutionary history. Maybe a better example with less linguistic ambiguity would be bats evolving into birds, (they might become bird like but not birds) even though they do share some ancestry at some point (tetrapods) but having diverged, they will never share the ancestry of birds as a group.

 

[Pogo]

Love it. One day all humans alive will enjoy seeing wonderful things.

Those of us who understand evolution already do.