Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

Again no because fish is not a monophyletic clade ......you have been told multiple times I even provided a source ...... Why is this so hard to understand ?


By your logic " if your ancestors where unicelular organisms then you and all your descendents are unicelular "


Honestly can't you see your mistake? @TagliatelliMonster please help me and explain to this man why is he wrong

Again your problems with equivocating terms when discussing biology and phylogenetics, our ancestors were single celled and we are descended from them, but single cell is not part of what defines that group of organisms, rather in more specific language they are called Eukaryotes which are cells with a lipid wall surrounding a nucleus. We are still Eukaryotes in spite of the fact that the original was a single cell and we are obviously not single celled.

The problem again is your not understanding the two realms of word usage and the unfortunately common mistakes due to equivocations.

In this case you are confusing the paraphyletic grouping that is commonly called fishes with another grouping that includes tetrapods that could also be called fishes though it is now not an equivalent grouping because it is no longer paraphyletic. This is the sense that Neil Shubin is using it in to communicate to mass audiences. Understanding that these are different groupings, not examples of evolution moving one organism to another grouping is where the problem is arising. It is difficult from your word usage to determine whether you understand this difference, hence the pushback.

 

[Pogo]

We have met the enemy and he is us.

I only read them in collections my father had, I suspect you got to read them in their individual newspaper publications.

 

[leroy]

Again your problems with equivocating terms when discussing biology and phylogenetics, our ancestors were single celled and we are descended from them, but single cell is not part of what defines that group of organisms, rather in more specific language they are called Eukaryotes which are cells with a lipid wall surrounding a nucleus. We are still Eukaryotes in spite of the fact that the original was a single cell and we are obviously not single celled.

The problem again is your not understanding the two realms of word usage and the unfortunately common mistakes due to equivocations.

In this case you are confusing the paraphyletic grouping that is commonly called fishes with another grouping that includes tetrapods that could also be called fishes though it is now not an equivalent grouping because it is no longer paraphyletic. This is the sense that Neil Shubin is using it in to communicate to mass audiences. Understanding that these are different groupings, not examples of evolution moving one organism to another grouping is where the problem is arising. It is difficult from your word usage to determine whether you understand this difference, hence the pushback.

It simply happens to be the case that we don’t call tetrapod’s “fishes”……………tomorrow someone can change the definition (as they did with dinosaurs) and fish could become a clade that includes tuna, humans and frogs (and excludes sharks and eels)………………but as of today nobody has changed the definition. ………..

And even more important……………..if all tetrapod’s are fishes as you claim, then humans and our descendent would also be fishes, which would refute original point ( which was that by definition humans can never evolve in to fishes.)


Your mistake is that you see to think that there are 2 defintions of fish

1 just a generic term that includes what we subjective decided to call fish (no strict rules)

2 a clade that includes human’s frogs tuna and salmon (and excludes sharks and eels I´ll guess)

I know that this is just semantics, but definition 2 doesn’t exist, ……………… but even more important it doesn’t matter what definition you use, it is still true that humans could (in principle) have descendants that we would call fish

 

[Subduction Zone]

Real evidence is always whatever supports what you believe so in science "real evidence" is whatever supports the prevailing paradigm.

Curiously enough every single time a fox catches a rabbit and every single time the rabbit gets away is support of "survival of the fittest" but that all observed change in life is sudden is irrelevant to the nature of life and how it changes.

Wow!!!

How many times have I said no science is based on evidence and all known science is based on experiment? How can believers in science not see this? If they could see it they'd know nothing in science can be proven and people can believe anything at all without experiment.

No, sorry. you do not understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences either. Are you willing to learn? And no matter how many times you say that science is not based upon evidence you will be wrong. A person can say 2 + 2 = 3 as many times as he likes, he will still be wrong.

 

[cladking]

I only read them in collections my father had, I suspect you got to read them in their individual newspaper publications.

I liked Pogo. It was one of the best new ones. The golden age of comics was probably late-'40's to early-'60's but I wasn't the biggest fan of the medium. My favorite, Calvin and Hobbs, was a later one also.

This one from 8-28-'92 is my favorite;

Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson for August 28, 1992 | GoComics.com

Calvin: Know what I pray for? Hobbes: What? Calvin: The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference. Hobbes: You should lead an interesting life. Calvin: Oh, I already do!

www.gocomics.com

I have certainly led an interesting life.

 

[Pogo]

It simply happens to be the case that we don’t call tetrapod’s “fishes”……………tomorrow someone can change the definition (as they did with dinosaurs) and fish could become a clade that includes tuna, humans and frogs (and excludes sharks and eels)………………but as of today nobody has changed the definition.

You don't, but you are not the arbiter of how language is used.
The ancestors of tetrapods were lobe finned fishes and thus phylogentically can be considered fishes as is the point in "Your Inner Fish"
Alternatively you can create a paraphyletic group that does not include the progeny of these lobe finned fishes and that will more closely correspond to the colloquial definition of fish. Both are correct in this wonderful language of ours.

………..

And even more important……………..if all tetrapod’s are fishes as you claim, then humans and our descendent would also be fishes, which would refute original point ( which was that by definition humans can never evolve in to fishes.)

This is the error, you are confusing group definition with evolution. One is categorization of observations, the other is the process that results in those observations. We can categorize humans as fish because they had fish ancestors, but what cannot happen in evolution by descent with modification is a change in ancestry.

Your mistake is that you see to think that there are 2 defintions of fish

There are lots of definitions of fish, welcome to the language, context is critical. We are fish if defined as a monophyletic group and not in a paraphyletic grouping as shown in the Evo 101 graphic with the yellow line, (I don't want to look it up again). And then there are all of the colloquial definitions in common use which may or may not include things that some would consider fish but others might think are worms or monsters.

1 just a generic term that includes what we subjective decided to call fish (no strict rules)

2 a clade that includes human’s frogs tuna and salmon (and excludes sharks and eels I´ll guess)

I know that this is just semantics, but definition 2 doesn’t exist, ……………… but even more important it doesn’t matter what definition you use, it is still true that humans could (in principle) have descendants that we would call fish

Again, no, your version of language and phylogenetics is your's alone and not compatible with the scientific understanding.
We either are fish in an evolutionary sense or we are not.
In a 5 year old's understanding, whales are fish and we could evolve to be such but this is not the realm under discussion.

And yes it is semantics which deals with definitions of words in different times and contexts, and semantics is important to the educated.

 

[cladking]

No, sorry. you do not understand what is and what is not evidence in the sciences either. Are you willing to learn? And no matter how many times you say that science is not based upon evidence you will be wrong. A person can say 2 + 2 = 3 as many times as he likes, he will still be wrong.

You simply ignore every single point made as is typical, almost universal among believers.

If science is based on evidence, what is an anomaly. Unless you actually address this reasonably I will not respond to your "last word" on the subject. You can simply believe that theory derives from facts and evidence because you are not going to actually discuss anything while lecturing me that 2 + 2 does not equal 3 no matter how many times I've said these are abstractions and they depend on abstract definitions. Two soldiers plus two enemy soldiers can make almost any number.

You live in an abstract world where the only thing that matters is the concrete. Your and Darwin's abstractions have led you far astray.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You simply ignore every single point made as is typical, almost universal among believers.

If science is based on evidence, what is an anomaly. Unless you actually address this reasonably I will not respond to your "last word" on the subject. You can simply believe that theory derives from facts and evidence because you are not going to actually discuss anything while lecturing me that 2 + 2 does not equal 3 no matter how many times I've said these are abstractions and they depend on abstract definitions. Two soldiers plus two enemy soldiers can make almost any number.

You live in an abstract world where the only thing that matters is the concrete. Your and Darwin's abstractions have led you far astray.

No, you do not make points. That is the problem. You make claims that you can never support. I can link valid sources that support me. I do not pretend to be an authority. You on the other hand think that you are on authority on all sorts of topics that you do not understand at all.

I know, you do not like how science is actually done because that makes all of your claims look foolish and weak.

 

[leroy]

You don't, but you are not the arbiter of how language is used.
The ancestors of tetrapods were lobe finned fishes and thus phylogentically can be considered fishes as is the point in "Your Inner Fish"

ok good point "lobe finned fishes"(Sarcopterygii,) is a clade that includes humans .......

There are lots of definitions of fish, welcome to the language, context is critical. We are fish if defined as a monophyletic group

In that case the statement made by @TagliatelliMonster “the descendants of humans by definition will never be fishes because you cant jump clades (paraphrasing) is wrong anyway...............

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok good point "lobe finned fishes"(Sarcopterygii,) is a clade that includes humans .......



In that case the statement made by @TagliatelliMonster “the descendants of humans by definition will be fishes because you cant jump clades (paraphrasing) is wrong anyway...............

How so? That actually goes with the fact that we are in the clade Sarcopterygii. Where is the error?

 

[leroy]

No, you do not make points. That is the problem. You make claims that you can never support. I can link valid sources that support me. I do not pretend to be an authority. You on the other hand think that you are on authority on all sorts of topics that you do not understand at all.

I know, you do not like how science is actually done because that makes all of your claims look foolish and weak.

For future references………..hopefully íll get the privilege of getting links that support your claims

 

[Dimi95]

If science is based on evidence, what is an anomaly. Unless you actually address this reasonably I will not respond to your "last word" on the subject. You can simply believe that theory derives from facts and evidence because you are not going to actually discuss anything while lecturing me that 2 + 2 does not equal 3 no matter how many times I've said these are abstractions and they depend on abstract definitions. Two soldiers plus two enemy soldiers can make almost any number.

You live in an abstract world where the only thing that matters is the concrete. Your and Darwin's abstractions have led you far astray.

You need to understand that you would not see darkness if there is no light.
But you seem to ignore that.

Darkness does not exist , it is just an absence of light.

It is there , but you can see it because of the light.

If there is no evidence , then what would your ideas deal with?

 

[leroy]

How so? That actually goes with the fact that we are in the clade Sarcopterygii. Where is the error?

typo (my mistake)

in that case the statement made by @TagliatelliMonster “the descendants of humans by definition will never be fishes because you cant jump clades (paraphrasing) is wrong anyway...............

 

[leroy]

And the definition is that it includes "some but not all of its descendant lineages".

so what?

The hypothetical descendants of humans with “fish– like” traits would:

1 share a common ancestor with other fishes like sharks tuna or eels

2 some but not all the descendant *linages* would be fishes

Therefore this hypothetical fish would fit in the defection of “the paraphyletic group fish”

 

[cladking]

You need to understand that you would not see darkness if there is no light.
But you seem to ignore that.

Darkness does not exist , it is just an absence of light.

It is there , but you can see it because of the light.

If there is no evidence , then what would your ideas deal with?

I disagree. Your argument is equivalent to saying if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, it makes no sound.

This is incorrect. Life is a logical adjunct to the logic of reality but it does not replace it. Stars would still shine if there were no life and caves would still be dark.

My axioms are different than yours. Your axioms led you astray to the belief in survival of the fittest. Reality neither cares nor knows if you are fit or not and THIS is why nobody can even define fitness; it's not real, it's a sound in the "forest" with no one to hear it.

Your science is reductionistic and it is very poor at seeing things like life and consciousness.

 

[cladking]

and caves would still be dark.

Yes I'm well aware that caves form by means of acid created by the decomposition of organic life at the water table so there might be no caves if there were no life. But the point stands.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you think I am missing something and you are not willing to explain it, then what are you expecting me to do?

I did explain.

I never get through to you, do I? I tell you repeatedly that you miss my words and that you post as if they were never written, then you do just that and ask me what you're missing. You won't acknowledge the possibility that there is no way for me to get through to you with those habits of yours, so there is no point in trying after you've missed the point once or twice, yet you post as if it were the case that if I just told what I think clearly and plainly that you would understand me even though that is EXACTLY what I have been saying doesn't happen..

the difference between you (plural) and I ……………….I am not trying to “win” the debate by simply saying “I already answered” and declare victory

No, that's not the difference or even a difference. In fact, it's one of the few things we have in common.

you are the who asked the question you are the one who is supposed to be interested in the answer, removing the ambiguity of the question should interest you

I can't make you pay attention to my words. I can't get you to understand them whatever I write, and often you apparently don't remember seeing them.

Instead of being direct and to the point and explain what is it that I have to answer (given that apparently I misunderstood your question the first time)

That doesn't work with you.

you are quoting to a vague and ambiguous post where you obvioslu didn’t make your point clear.

That you didn't understand my post doesn't mean that it wasn't clear. You simply will not consider the possibility that there is merit to my words. You refuse or are unable to take them at face value. You continue posting as if there's hope of you ever understanding and replying responsively to what you cannot understand.

I think we've reached the end of this session. We're both only repeating ourselves, there is no communication occurring from me to you, and there is no hope of breaking out of this loop. Let's call it over. I don't intend to respond to the same comments from you with the same answers from me ad infinitum.

Sorry, Leroy. I actually like you and have no anger for you, so I hate writing words like these to you, which must not be pleasant to read, but I think that this phenomenon is very interesting and worthy of comment to the gallery. I wasn't aware that this kind of thing happened at all until engaging people on message boards like this one, and now, I see it relatively frequently. I don't understand it, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can about it, although I think I may have done that already.

 

[leroy]

From 0:15 to 1:23 specifically concerning age.
The 10 minutes that follow that, he walks us though how they pinpointed possible locations to go hunt for the fossil, how they went about it and what kind of fossil they were looking for.
The last 5 minutes talks about finding the fossil and how it matched their expectations.


Enjoy.

As expected, the video didn’t answer my question………….the video claims that tikaalik was expected to be found in the late Devonian, but he doesn’t explains why specially given that we now know that land tetrapods evolved before that age (during the mid denovian)

The discovery of tetrapod fossils in the mid Devonian is a fairly recent discovery……………my bet is that the video predates that discovery, therefore the video is not useful

 

[Dimi95]

I disagree. Your argument is equivalent to saying if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it, it makes no sound.

True.

But your argument fails because there has to be a forest and a tree so it can fall.

You understand now what is event?

This is incorrect. Life is a logical adjunct to the logic of reality but it does not replace it. Stars would still shine if there were no life and caves would still be dark.

False
If there is no light , there would be nothing,not even stars.
If there is no start line , then it is useless.

My axioms are different than yours. Your axioms led you astray to the belief in survival of the fittest.

Again your bias comes out.

It's not about the fit , those that survive - survive.
Either fit or not , they survive.

Reality neither cares nor knows if you are fit or not and THIS is why nobody can even define fitness; it's not real, it's a sound in the "forest" with no one to hear it.

And now you confirm what i previously stated.

those that survive - survive.

Your science is reductionistic and it is very poor at seeing things like life and consciousness.

You need to demonstrate that.
I can say things , but if i cannot back them , they are useless.

 

[Pogo]

ok good point "lobe finned fishes"(Sarcopterygii,) is a clade that includes humans .......



In that case the statement made by @TagliatelliMonster “the descendants of humans by definition will never be fishes because you cant jump clades (paraphrasing) is wrong anyway...............

Not in the case of the paraphyletic clade of fishes in the Evo 101 illustration which does not include the Sarcopterygii. (the yellow band). By that classification, we are not fishes and because we cannot change our ancestry regardless of future evolution we will never be. This is a matter of definition and the two groups are not considered the same even though they could both be called clades of fishes. This apparent problem wouldn't even arise except that only serious biologists the actual Latin name for the root of the clade and to specify whether it is para or mono phyletic, however that distinction is glossed over when speaking colloquially and in this case it creates confusion.