Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

If there is selective pressure + time +good luck, why, wouldn’t humans evolve in to a swimming creature with lungs and scales (something that would be called a “fish”)?

Because they say so that's why.

 

[YoursTrue]

As far as I can see, it is not controversial and nobody in tis forum disagrees

I don't even know what y'all are concluding from, therefore I'm not casting my ballot yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

If they (some) already belive that the universe came from nothing………. Humans evolving in to fish most look like a walk in the park for them

And I'm also saying that what mutations make can make humans to fish according to the theory

 

[Pogo]

Pathetic. I have to repeat everything a million times (when I use the word "metaphysics" I mean basis of science) and you just say you've already said it.

That's no argument it's an evasion. And modern theory is still based on experiment not claims of already having proved something.

And again, your private definition, that is what metaphysics means to English speakers. You are not doing any better with theory either.

 

[Pogo]

Then SQ is not predictive but rather counts offspring.

Remarkable! You don't see a problem with lack of experiment, lack of predictive capabilities, or an understanding that doesn't explain!

Mass isn't predictive either, your point?

 

[Pogo]

An interesting set of behavior are abortion and trans gender. If we do the math, these behavior go the opposite of evolution and natural selection, since this part of the population is taking breeding and offspring off the table. Evolution is usually a positive thing based on fitness plus procreation so the fitness genes can go forward. But these behavior, by bottlenecking breeding, are detached from evolution. Even if fit in culture, lack of breeding, does not pass their genes forward for evolution.

Does nature also cause some to leave the gene pool, so the direction of evolution can detoured? We have whales beaching themselves, essentially taking themselves out of the breeding cycle of natural selection. Does this mean, since the DNC, which is big on abortion and transgender, by departing procreation, are going the opposite way of natural selection; natural de-selection? Does this mean the DNC, itself, is heading toward extinction, by deselecting from natural selection?

Trump and the RNC, conceptually go along with evolution; fitness and breeding. Therefore is the RNC the new natural future of natural selection? Could we make a prediction? A vote for Trump, is a vote of natural selection, breeding and evolution. Ironically, most religions, tell the faithful to have babies and therefore are religions like an arm of modern evolution? Those who de-select, good luck. Do the math based on the parameters of the existing theory. I am an applied scientist doing the math.

Then explain with math etc why some species miscarry when food supplies are limited?

You might have been an engineer once, but scientist, no.

 

[Pogo]

If there is selective pressure + time +good luck, why, wouldn’t humans evolve in to a swimming creature with lungs and scales (something that would be called a “fish”)?

Do you consider whales to be fish?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They surely have.

Ok. Link to the post.

If you and others don't think it's possible for humans to evolve to fish, what are your reasons for saying that?

Because humans are mammals. Species don't jump branches. All descendants of humans will remain on the mammalian branch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have found then, when asking people like yourself, they believe everything an "expert" may say.

No.
However, what an expert says concerning his/her field of expertise surely is more valueable / believable then when a rando on the internet, who's NOT an expert in those things, claims to know better.

You personally don't understand it but believe what those you consider experts to say. Have a good day bye for now.

I understand evolution pretty well. I had to learn quite a bit about it back when I worked on the GA module

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unlike yourself and those like you (no insult intended) you demonstrate a remarkable lack of cognitive ability. Nothing personal and I hope things improve in your perceptions.

Says the person who's been insisting on being wrong about an issue that's been corrected on a near weekly basis for at least 3 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As far as I can see, it is not controversial and nobody in tis forum disagrees

I don't know what thread you have been reading or following, but @cladking has done nothing BUT disagree with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there is selective pressure + time +good luck, why, wouldn’t humans evolve in to a swimming creature with lungs and scales (something that would be called a “fish”)?

Do you think a whale is a fish?

You can call such a creature a "fish" if you want, but you would simply be incorrect.

Whales aren't fish. They are mammals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you say Nimrod is a myth ______________________
Mankind can trace its 'religious family tree' back to its base with Nimrod and the Tower of Babel
As the people migrated away from there they took with them their religious practices and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great
That is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas and practices spread world wide throughout today's religious world

We know these things are myths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I'm also saying that what mutations make can make humans to fish according to the theory

You mean, according to your strawman idea, or misunderstanding, of the theory.

In the actual theory, such would be impossible.

This is actually just another variation of the error you have been insisting upon for more then 3 years, even though we have been correcting it and pointing out your mistake on a near weekly basis... You know... the whole "but gorillas remain gorillas".... Yes, they do. And mammals remain mammals. Which is exactly why mammals won't evolve into fish. Because that would mean they aren't mammals anymore.

IOW, if humans evolved into fish, then evolution theory would be disproven, falsified, wrong

 

[leroy]

Do you consider whales to be fish?

No *I* personaly... don't consider whales to be fish

Now care to answer to the question in the comment that you are quoting?

 

[cladking]

You call it "caught with no pants". Scientists call it "progress".

Of course it's progress when some individual comes along and shows science has its pants down. Covering up is the progress. When the pants were down science was less advanced. Progress. That's it.

Because you demonstrated time and again you have no clue how science works.

When I say "Observation > Experiment" what part do you disagree with? Maybe you want to force "Origin of Species" in there.

 

[leroy]

Do you think a whale is a fish?

You can call such a creature a "fish" if you want, but you would simply be incorrect.

Whales aren't fish. They are mammals.

(I meant gills not lungs in my original question) my mistake

So given enough time luck and selective pressure......what would prevent humans to evolve in to swiming crestures with gills and sacales? Something that you would call a fish

Whales aren't fish. They are mammals

Yes according to how we clasify animals today, whales are mammals not fish.... then what? What is your point?

Lammal

 

[cladking]

Another way to say that, in biological terms, is that they have a low fitness score.

Define it.

Random statement is random.

So you believe some toads act like birds or all toads sometimes? Please clarify.

I already explained why it is hard to predict. Too many variables.

So you have a "theory" that makes no predictions and can't tell how fit an individual is until it dies and you count its offspring. Do you deduct points if off spring die or have a low "Survivability Quotient"? What good are dead or defective off spring.

How long after an individual dies do you deduct points for dead off spring? And what about their off spring? It seems like your idea of "fitness" doesn't work doesn't it?

No.

Brilliant reply. Yes.

And then you ask why I don't respond to everything you say when I already have dozens of times and you ignore my points. Maybe I'm wrong but at least I can defend my interpretation and all you can do is repeat your omniscience.

No species is "brand new". Every "new" species is always a subspecies of their ancestral species.

You've said this before and then you follow it up with every individual is the same species as its parents.

And you said this while ignoring the fact I specifically stated that a group of animals was acting unlike the rest of the species. Of course you can't see an argument when you ignore it at every turn and use it as an excuse to preach your beliefs.

"adam"?
What are you on about now?

The real name of the first human wouldn't be recognized by you so I provided the biblical name. This is a rendition of the first individual who could consciously manipulate language. He was the result of a mutation that tied the wernickes area of the brain to the prefrontal cortex. He was then able to take the simple animal language with which he was born and invent complex language which allowed learning to be passed from one generation to the next. The rest, as they say, is history.

Unfortunately we lost this history because the language invented became too comp-lex after 40,000 and new languages arose at the "tower of babel". This is what experiment and evidence suggests.

If you can't define consciousness or at least recognize it exists then you can't understand life OR how it changes. Darwin was wrong and we've all been wrong for 4000 years.

 

[cladking]

An interesting set of behavior are abortion and trans gender. If we do the math, these behavior go the opposite of evolution and natural selection, since this part of the population is taking breeding and offspring off the table. Evolution is usually a positive thing based on fitness plus procreation so the fitness genes can go forward. But these behavior, by bottlenecking breeding, are detached from evolution. Even if fit in culture, lack of breeding, does not pass their genes forward for evolution.

Does nature also cause some to leave the gene pool, so the direction of evolution can detoured? We have whales beaching themselves, essentially taking themselves out of the breeding cycle of natural selection. Does this mean, since the DNC, which is big on abortion and transgender, by departing procreation, are going the opposite way of natural selection; natural de-selection? Does this mean the DNC, itself, is heading toward extinction, by deselecting from natural selection?

Trump and the RNC, conceptually go along with evolution; fitness and breeding. Therefore is the RNC the new natural future of natural selection? Could we make a prediction? A vote for Trump, is a vote of natural selection, breeding and evolution. Ironically, most religions, tell the faithful to have babies and therefore are religions like an arm of modern evolution? Those who de-select, good luck. Do the math based on the parameters of the existing theory. I am an applied scientist doing the math.

Humans have done so many things that are stupid and counterproductive to the individual and the commonweal for 4000 years it's difficult to single out any one of them that is most destructive.

 

[Pogo]

No *I* personaly... don't consider whales to be fish

Now care to answer to the question in the comment that you are quoting?

Well then you already knew the answer, whales are mammals that have evolved to live in water but they are not and never will be fish.