Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

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.

In the meantime I'm sure you are honest enough to figure chimps could evolve given what some call circumstances, to water dwellers. Sure, according the theory it would take a long time but given the theory it could happen. Why not?

 

[gnostic]

Wrong ..... fish unlike mammals or birds is not a clade in the current system of clasification of animals...... fish is a generic term (lke bug or worm) that has not a clear objective definition.

You were doing okay here, well, at least semi-okay.

The word fish, by itself isn’t actual classification, it is rather nebulous classification, meaning it isn’t that well defined.

However, biologists can have divided the term fish into more well-defined classifications, such as jawless fishes (infraphylum Agnatha) vs jawed fishes (infraphylum Gnathostomata), both are infraphylum of the (subphylum) Vertebrata.

From the Gnathostomata, were several classes of fishes, but the most important ones are:

• the cartilaginous fishes - clade or class Chondrichthyes - fishes that have skeleton made of cartilages, like all the families and species of sharks and of rays;
• the bony fishes - superclass Osteichthyes - fishes with skeleton made of bones.

There are two main classes to the superclass Osteichthyes :

• the ray-finned fishes - class Actinopterygii - their fins are made of bony spines that are webbed together by skin;
• the lobe-finned fishes - class Sacropterygii - their fins have fleshy or muscular limb buds, which are referred to as lobes.

There used to be more species of the sarcopterygian fishes, but most of them became extinct, including the Tetrapodomorpha sacropterygians (eg Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc); the Tetrapodomorpha are still fishes, but were developing skeletal limb-like fins. The only surviving species of the Sarcopterygii are the coelacanths and lungfishes.

There are lot varieties in the Actinopterygii group.

it is from the Tetrapodomorpha, the clade of Sacropterygii, that eventually developed 4 limbs strong enough their bodies weights to move on land, more freely, the earliest but extinct true tetrapods (the superclass Tetrapoda) - the amphibians.

Amphibians can reside in either aquatic environments and terrestrial environments, but as with all amphibians - extinct or extant - and like their fish ancestors, the amphibians must return to the water, when & where they reproduce, and then they lay their eggs in aquatic environments. Hence fishes and amphibians are classified as “anamniotes“.

Eventually the early amphibians would become so adapted to terrestrial existence, that they abilities to either lay their eggs on dry lands, or retained their embryos in their wombs prior to giving live birth. When they can do one or the other, these are classified as “amniotes”, the Amniota is clade of Tetrapoda.

But then you took 10 steps backwards with these:

This means that theoretically one can be both fish and mammal in the same way someone can be both bug and insect.................

Again, why not?

Given enough time and selective pressure why couldn’t whales evolve in to a smaller creature with gills and scales………..(something that we could call a fish)?

Something so backwards, that it seem you will never go forward.

 

[Pogo]

Again if it already happened 20 times in the past………..why not once more in the future…………why do you keep avoiding the question?...........................

A proper analogy would be

“X” person walking form a town to a city

And

“Y” person walking form some other town to some other city

Nether do the starting point nor the end point has to be the same………..this is why a new type of “fish like” creature could evolve in the future and it “wouldn’t be too unlikely” (given that this has already happened dozens of times in the past)........do you understand this?

If you are reducing it to fish-like, it has happened many times already, if you mean biologically a fish, that is the whole point behind clades, you can't leave the one you are in and you cannot enter one from the outside. Basic evolutionary theory.

 

[Pogo]

Ha, good one.

Pay up, he already lost.

 

[Pogo]

And so in your mind it could be possible these may evolve to landrovers.

You know, you are not funny.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know, you are not funny.

In other words, it could happen. Ok. (As far as you and the possibilities of the process of evolution are concerned.

 

[YoursTrue]

Pay up, he already lost.

It's not a contest. It's called reality.

 

[Pogo]

Meantime with the possibilities of chance mutations with regard to the theory of evolution, it's possible that chimpanzees could evolve to water dwellers. Best to be honest about this.

Nobody except creationists doesn't know this. Creationists such as yourself however refuse to learn to use the English language and the concept of context for words. You especially make a point of equivocating on the meanings of words so as to ask your silly "gotcha" questions and rather than learn from the explanations, just save them up to repeat later as if they were new.

Oh, and don't bother to bring up the wacky water hypothesis. It does absolutely nothing for your argument except demonstrate that you are not serious.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#:~:text=The%20aquatic%20ape%20hypothesis%20(AAH,to%20a%20more%20aquatic%20habitat.

 

[Pogo]

It's not a contest. It's called reality.

And you and @leroy lost because we have been trying to make you understand that Whales, Porpoises etc are examples of what you wish to see, but they are not and will never be fishes in the scientific sense.

Living in water is not the definition of a fish to anyone who has graduated beyond My First Reader.

 

[Pogo]

It's not a contest. It's called reality.

Something you obviously know very little about.

 

[leroy]

You were doing okay here, well, at least semi-okay.

The word fish, by itself isn’t actual classification, it is rather nebulous classification, meaning it isn’t that well defined.

However, biologists can have divided the term fish into more well-defined classifications, such as jawless fishes (infraphylum Agnatha) vs jawed fishes (infraphylum Gnathostomata), both are infraphylum of the (subphylum) Vertebrata.

From the Gnathostomata, were several classes of fishes, but the most important ones are:

• the cartilaginous fishes - clade or class Chondrichthyes - fishes that have skeleton made of cartilages, like all the families and species of sharks and of rays;
• the bony fishes - superclass Osteichthyes - fishes with skeleton made of bones.

There are two main classes to the superclass Osteichthyes :

• the ray-finned fishes - class Actinopterygii - their fins are made of bony spines that are webbed together by skin;
• the lobe-finned fishes - class Sacropterygii - their fins have fleshy or muscular limb buds, which are referred to as lobes.

There used to be more species of the sarcopterygian fishes, but most of them became extinct, including the Tetrapodomorpha sacropterygians (eg Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc); the Tetrapodomorpha are still fishes, but were developing skeletal limb-like fins. The only surviving species of the Sarcopterygii are the coelacanths and lungfishes.

There are lot varieties in the Actinopterygii group.

it is from the Tetrapodomorpha, the clade of Sacropterygii, that eventually developed 4 limbs strong enough their bodies weights to move on land, more freely, the earliest but extinct true tetrapods (the superclass Tetrapoda) - the amphibians.

Amphibians can reside in either aquatic environments and terrestrial environments, but as with all amphibians - extinct or extant - and like their fish ancestors, the amphibians must return to the water, when & where they reproduce, and then they lay their eggs in aquatic environments. Hence fishes and amphibians are classified as “anamniotes“.

Eventually the early amphibians would become so adapted to terrestrial existence, that they abilities to either lay their eggs on dry lands, or retained their embryos in their wombs prior to giving live birth. When they can do one or the other, these are classified as “amniotes”, the Amniota is clade of Tetrapoda.

Interesting..... Relevance?

But then you took 10 steps backwards with these:





Something so backwards, that it seem you will never go forward.

Ok so I am wrong because you say so.


Given enough time luck and selective pressure. What would prevent a mammal to evolve in to something that we would call a fish?

 

[leroy]

If you are reducing it to fish-like, it has happened many times already, if you mean biologically a fish, that is the whole point behind clades, you can't leave the one you are in and you cannot enter one from the outside. Basic evolutionary theory.

Yes you are basically reapiting what I said .... The point is that fish is not a clade this is why in principle one can be a fish then a non fish then a fish again

Birds and mammals are different because birds and mammals are true clades. One can't evolve from mammal to bird (by definition)

Any disagreement.?

biologically a fish

What is that suppose to mean ?

 

[Pogo]

Yes you are basically reapiting what I said .... The point is that fish is not a clade this is why in principle one can be a fish then a non fish then a fish again

Birds and mammals are different because birds and mammals are true clades. One can't evolve from mammal to bird (by definition)

Any disagreement.?


What is that suppose to mean ?

You are not talking about biology in your scenario, you are just using colloquial terms and imagination to create a sci=fi something.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting..... Relevance?

Ok so I am wrong because you say so.


Given enough time luck and selective pressure. What would prevent a mammal to evolve in to something that we would call a fish?

My goodness...snake, fish, amphibian...whatever an ape might evolve to....

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not talking about biology in your scenario, you are just using colloquial terms and imagination to create a sci=fi something.

Cmon...are you seriously saying an ape, according to the theory you accept, could not evolve to...an amphibious organism...or a total water dweller...or a a multitude of other eukaryote formations?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody except creationists doesn't know this. Creationists such as yourself however refuse to learn to use the English language and the concept of context for words. You especially make a point of equivocating on the meanings of words so as to ask your silly "gotcha" questions and rather than learn from the explanations, just save them up to repeat later as if they were new.

Oh, and don't bother to bring up the wacky water hypothesis. It does absolutely nothing for your argument except demonstrate that you are not serious.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis#:~:text=The%20aquatic%20ape%20hypothesis%20(AAH,to%20a%20more%20aquatic%20habitat.

Meantime...nothing you say shows that the theory would disallow an ape population evolving to a water dwelling population.

 

[gnostic]

Interesting..... Relevance?

There may not be actual classification for fish, alone, but like I said, they do have some numbers of classifications with fishes that have specific physical traits that have in common, and below are the major groupings for what we used colloquially as the fish:

• Agnatha - fishes without jaws, eg hagfish, lamprey, etc
• Gnathostomata - fishes without jaws, which include all the ones below -

• Chondrichthyes - all fishes with cartilage for skeleton, eg sharks, rays, etc
• Osteichthyes - all fishes with bones for skeleton, see below -

• Actinopterygii - all fishes that have ray-fins, eg swordfish, salmon, tuna, goldfish, seahorse, and so much more,
• Sarcopterygii - all lobe-finned fishes, eg coelacanth, lungfish; the rest are extinct, eg Eusthenopteron, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc.

You talk of clades, so I have listed above and in my previous post, those major classifications that are “monophyletic groups”, hence “common ancestors”, and their respective descendants…that’s what clades are about.

Tunas, salmons, swordfishes, can trace back to common ancestor of the earliest clade (Actinopteri) of the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii).

 

[YoursTrue]

There may not be actual classification for fish, alone, but like I said, they do have some numbers of classifications with fishes that have specific physical traits that have in common, and below are the major groupings for what we used colloquially as the fish:

• Agnatha - fishes without jaws, eg hagfish, lamprey, etc
• Gnathostomata - fishes without jaws, which include all the ones below -

• Chondrichthyes - all fishes with cartilage for skeleton, eg sharks, rays, etc
• Osteichthyes - all fishes with bones for skeleton, see below -

• Actinopterygii - all fishes that have ray-fins, eg swordfish, salmon, tuna, goldfish, seahorse, and so much more,
• Sarcopterygii - all lobe-finned fishes, eg coelacanth, lungfish; the rest are extinct, eg Eusthenopteron, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, etc.

You talk of clades, so I have listed above and in my previous post, those major classifications that are “monophyletic groups”, hence “common ancestors”, and their respective descendants…that’s what clades are about.

Tunas, salmons, swordfishes, can trace back to common ancestor of the earliest clade (Actinopteri) of the ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii).

I haven't heard of any evolutionary changes of salmon but of course they're hard to examine that way maybe, and it is my favorite fish though. Yet they fight their way upstream. Amazing. Maybe I'll have salmon today, maybe not because my favorite restaurant doesn't serve it. But I have some in the freezer.

 

[GoodAttention]

I haven't heard of any evolutionary changes of salmon but of course they're hard to examine that way maybe, and it is my favorite fish though. Yet they fight their way upstream. Amazing. Maybe I'll have salmon today, maybe not because my favorite restaurant doesn't serve it. But I have some in the freezer.

The only salmon you can eat are the ones that evolved a resistance to mecury accumulation.

 

[YoursTrue]

The only salmon you can eat are the ones that evolved a resistance to mecury accumulation.

Maybe, I guess. Why, do they not fight upstream? Shame that so much mercury is killing them anyway. And probably people, now that you mention it.